skill_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden. It does disclose two useful behaviors: skills must be allow-listed, and implementations are reloaded after source changes. But it does not disclose side effects, failure modes, or what happens when a skill is not allow-listed, which matters for a code-execution tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. 'Allow-listed' and 'reloading after source changes' are both meaningful constraints that earn their 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 tool that runs a skill with a free-form payload, the description is too sparse: it lacks how to find allow-listed skills, how to structure payload, and what execution semantics to expect. The presence of an output schema covers return format, but the safety and parameter context remain incomplete.

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 0% and the description adds no parameter guidance. It never explains how skill_name is resolved or what payload should contain, and payload is a free-form object, leaving the most important input completely underspecified.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Run an allow-listed skill'. The reload-after-source-changes detail adds a distinguishing behavioral note. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like orchestrate or registry_search, so it doesn't earn 5.

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?

'Reloading its implementation after source changes' implies the intended use case of running a skill after edits. However, the description does not explain when to prefer this tool over siblings like orchestrate, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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