Search installed skills

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'deterministically' (implying stable, reproducible results) and 'scored candidates and reasons' (informing the agent about output shape), which enriches behavioral understanding beyond 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?

Two sentences, zero waste. Each phrase earns its place: 'deterministically' conveys behavior, 'scored candidates and reasons' conveys output, and 'without choosing for the agent' conveys role boundary.

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 2-param read-only search tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, behavior, and output shape. It could mention return format expectations (e.g., result ordering) but is largely complete for the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both query and limit parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description doesn't add semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, but it does clarify the deterministic scoring/reasons output. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 searches installed skills 'deterministically by task terms.' It emphasizes that it returns 'scored candidates and reasons without choosing for the agent,' which defines its scope precisely. This distinguishes it from siblings like recommend_skills (which presumably chooses/recommends) and inventory_skills (which lists).

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 'without choosing for the agent' implies the tool returns candidates for agent review rather than auto-selecting, which gives a clear usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over recommend_skills or inventory_skills, nor provides any when-not-to-use exclusions.

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