skill_inspect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state that the content body is not included and that the operation is low-cost, which adds some context. However, it does not mention authorization, output format, side effects, or failure modes, leaving the agent to infer the tool's superficial behavior.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, and the parenthetical adds useful scope and cost information. A bit more structure would improve scannability, but the length is appropriate.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and two optional-looking parameters, the description is not complete enough for confident invocation. An agent still needs to understand the required parameter combination, output shape, and fallback when both parameters are absent.

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 only 50% because the 'name' parameter lacks a description, and the tool description does not compensate. The 'key' parameter has example formats, but the relationship between 'key' and 'name', whether either is required, and what happens if both are provided remain unclear.

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 identifies what the tool does: inspect a skill's manifest, dependency tree, and permission list. It explicitly excludes the body ('不含正文'), which helps differentiate it from likely content-focused siblings like skill_get, though it doesn't name the alternative directly.

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 no explicit guidance about when to choose skill_inspect over sibling tools such as skill_search nor skill_get. '成本低' hints at lightweight use, but there are no stated conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool names.

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