search_skills

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the two corpora searched (Suvadu shared library and .suvadu/skills/) and infers a read-only operation, but says nothing about permissions, matching behavior, or result shape.

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 tight sentences: the what (keyword search across named fields and sources) is front-loaded, followed by a single actionable use case. No filler.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, targets, and usage well. Paging is handled by the schema's offset/next_offset docs, but the description could say more about how results are returned or ranked.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes further by clarifying that the query matches across name, description, and triggers, adding meaning to the otherwise thin 'Text to search for' schema text, though scope/limit/offset/detail are left to the schema.

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?

States a concrete verb (search) and resource (shared skills library plus the project's repo skills), and names the searchable fields (name, description, triggers). The search-vs-list distinction from siblings like list_skills and get_skill is implied by 'by keyword' but not called out explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use trigger: 'Use this before writing a new checklist/instruction to see if one already exists.' It does not name alternatives (e.g., list_skills/get_skill) or state when-not to use it, so it falls short of a full routing rule.

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