search_skills

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails to. It says results are 'relevan' but does not disclose ranking behavior, result count limits, whether matching is literal or fuzzy, or what the response looks like, all of which matter for a search tool with sibling list/guide tools.

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 efficient sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and the matching basis. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool, though the terseness contributes to the missing behavioral detail.

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-parameter search with no output schema, the definition covers the core purpose adequately. It still leaves what comes back and how results are ordered unexplained, which the agent needs in order to decide between searching and listing.

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 schema already documents the single query parameter with concrete examples ('smali', 'ssl pinning', 'trading', 'cloudflare'). The description merely restates that the input is a topic or problem keyword, so it adds little beyond the schema and the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource (search skills) and adds the matching basis (topic or problem keyword), so the agent knows this is a relevance search rather than a full listing. It does not name or contrast with the obvious sibling list_antigravity_skills, so differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'topik atau masalah yang dihadapi' — it suggests calling this when the agent has a topic or problem in mind. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of how this relates to list_antigravity_skills or get_skill_guide, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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