Skillfolio

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by mentioning it covers 'what it deliberately does not do,' which is useful but not rich. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('what Skillfolio is') and then elaborates with key aspects (thesis, features, non-features). Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise for a no-parameter tool.

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?

Given the tool takes no parameters and has rich annotations and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it tells the agent what content to expect (thesis, features, exclusions). It doesn't detail the output format, but that's not necessary with an output schema present. A complete description for this simple tool.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no schema to document. Since schema coverage is 100% (no params to cover), a baseline of 4 is justified. The description's mention of covering features and exclusions adds context that would help an agent understand what to expect, though it doesn't provide parameter-specific details.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to provide an overview of Skillfolio, covering the product thesis, features, and what it does not do. It distinguishes it from siblings like get_pricing and get_profile by focusing on the product as a whole rather than specific details, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 description implies the tool is for obtaining a general understanding of Skillfolio, which is a clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_pricing for pricing details or get_profile for a specific profile, so usage guidance is mostly implicit.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety info. The description adds contextual detail about the content (free vs. paid features) but no additional behavioral traits like rate limits or side effects. This is adequate given the annotations.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the tool's name and immediately provides the key content: what is free and what Full Access includes. No wasted words.

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, parameterless pricing tool with an existing output schema, the description is complete. It covers both free and paid aspects, and the presence of an output schema means return-value details are already handled elsewhere.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema provides no parameter details. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output content rather than parameter syntax. No further explanation of parameters is needed.

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?

The description clearly states the tool provides pricing information, specifying both the free features and the paid Full Access tier at $29.99/month. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings about_skillfolio and how_to_get_started, which are broader topics.

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 description implies this tool is used when users ask about pricing or what's included in plans, but it does not explicitly state when to use it compared to alternatives. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so guidance 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?

The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: it returns nothing for unpublished handles and explicitly instructs the agent not to guess. This is a critical operational detail not captured in the readOnlyHint or destructiveHint annotations. It also clarifies that the returned data is 'what that person has chosen to publish,' setting expectations for data scope.

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?

The description is three concise sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage trigger, and edge-case handling. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, uses no unnecessary words, and reads clearly.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with output schema present, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and the not-found behavior. No critical gaps remain, and the provided output schema (indicated as present) would handle return structure details.

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 input schema already provides full documentation for the handle parameter, including examples and format ('with or without the @'). The description merely restates 'by its handle' without adding new semantic details. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; neither the schema nor description needs extra help.

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?

The description clearly states the tool 'Looks up a published Skillfolio profile by its handle' and lists the specific content returned (headline, summary, experience, skills, interview answers). It uniquely identifies the tool's purpose relative to siblings like show_example_profile, which likely focuses on a demo profile.

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 description provides an explicit usage trigger: 'Use when someone mentions a skillfolio.studio/@handle link or asks about a specific person’s profile.' It also includes a caution about not guessing when the handle is not published. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it relative to other sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The annotations already indicate read-only, and the description aligns with that by portraying an informational guide. It adds specific scope details (resume upload to published portfolio) but does not disclose whether the guide is interactive, static, or any other behavioral nuances. With the annotations providing the safety profile, the description offers modest additional context.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and scope. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no redundant 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, read-only, and an existing output schema), the description sufficiently covers what the guide does and when it is appropriate to use. It could mention the delivery format or prerequisites, but these are not essential for basic invocation, so it is almost 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not attempt to describe parameters that don't exist, and there is nothing more needed for parameter semantics.

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?

The description clearly defines the tool as a step-by-step guide for creating a Skillfolio profile, with a specific scope from resume upload to published portfolio. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools 'about_skillfolio' and 'get_pricing' by focusing on the onboarding process.

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 description implies that this tool should be used when users need guidance on creating a profile, which provides clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool relative to its siblings, so it misses the full 'when/when-not' guidance.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the valuable detail that it returns a 'real, live' profile (not a mock or synthetic example), which gives the agent useful context about the nature of the returned data without contradicting the annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence immediately states the action and outcome, and the second gives the precise usage context. Every word 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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, why someone would use it, and when to invoke it. Sibling differentiation is implicit but sufficient.

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 has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially, since the schema is empty). Baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific information because none is needed.

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?

The description clearly states it 'Returns a real, live Skillfolio profile' and positions it as a demonstration tool ('show someone what one looks like instead of describing it'). This distinguishes it from the sibling get_profile, which implies retrieval of a specific profile, while show_example_profile is explicitly an example.

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?

Provides clear context: 'Use when someone is curious about the product or asks what a profile contains.' It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the usage scenario is well-defined and the example nature is apparent.

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?

The description discloses that the tool creates a website from conversation input, returns a personal link, and does not require the user to upload anything ('they never upload anything to Skillfolio'). It also warns against inventing data. Annotations are all false, so this adds meaningful context beyond annotations, though it doesn't address repeated calls or draft creation side effects.

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?

The description is long but each sentence earns its place: states the action, sets usage context, handles both resume/none cases, sets prerequisites, and enforces data integrity. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and keeps caveats in later clauses.

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?

The description covers purpose, when to use, prerequisites (consent and three questions), data handling (from resume or conversation), and safety guardrails (no invented data). With an output schema present, the return value need only be mentioned as a personal link, which it does. All critical guidance for successful invocation is present.

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%, so the JSON schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by mapping 'Heart, Values, Spark' to the corresponding params and instructing agents to 'pass the structured fields' from a resume rather than uploading files, providing provenance for parameter values.

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?

The description opens with a clear verb phrase 'Turns what someone told you in this conversation into a Skillfolio portfolio website' and names the concrete output (a personal link, page, resume, interview answers). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like about_skillfolio and get_pricing, which are informational rather than creation-focused.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'Use this when someone wants their resume to live somewhere employers can find and question it, especially right after you have helped them write or improve one.' It also gives strong exclusion criteria: 'Call this only after they have said yes and you have asked Skillfolio's three character questions (Heart, Values, Spark).'

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