seoskills.sh

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses what comes back (the install command and SKILL.md content), which is real behavioral value, but says nothing about failure modes for an unknown id, auth needs, or whether the SKILL.md body is returned in full.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence with the verb and key front-loaded and no filler. Every clause (id format, return contents) earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple single-item read with no output schema, naming the returned artifacts is the main thing an agent needs, and it does that. Missing error/not-found behavior keeps it from being fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the only parameter is fully documented with an example, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'owner/repo/slug' decomposition adds modest structural meaning but largely restates the schema's example format.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get full details for one skill') plus the scoping key ('by its id'), which clearly separates it from the list/search siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than spelled out.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'by its id' implies the tool is for lookups when an identifier is already known, and that search_skills would be the path to obtain one, but neither condition nor alternative is stated. Usage is only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return content (categories plus per-category skill counts), which compensates for the absent output schema, but says nothing about ordering, auth, or whether the category set is static or derived from available skills.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource and the returned metric with zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter read-only listing with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what is listed and that counts are included. Minor gaps remain around ordering and how categories relate to the skill set, but the core is complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies an unfiltered, whole-collection listing.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('SEO skill categories') plus the payload ('count of skills in each'). It is clearly distinguishable from get_skill and search_skills, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus search_skills or get_skill. The only hint is the implied 'browse categories first' workflow, which the agent must infer. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations supplied, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It states it returns install commands but not the result shape, ranking, whether it's read-only, pagination, or match behavior (substring vs fuzzy). Significant gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences, front-loading purpose then return value. No wasted words, though the return clause is the only behavioral content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple search tool with 0 required params and no output schema this is roughly adequate, but limit semantics, default behavior, and result format are left unspecified and there are no annotations to compensate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67%; query and category already documented in schema. limit is undocumented in both schema and description (no semantics on default or purpose), and the description doesn't clarify whether query and category combine or are alternatives.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clear verb (Search) + resource (seoskills.sh catalog of SEO agent skills) + scope (by keyword and/or category). Distinguishes itself from siblings get_skill (fetch one) and list_categories (enumerate categories).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implies discovery/searching use but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not, and does not point to the siblings get_skill or list_categories for alternative flows. Minimal guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.