trades_runtime_skill

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints that the tool provides a skill markdown document, but it does not state the return format, whether any side effects occur, whether authentication is needed, or what the agent should expect when invoking it. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation context.

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 very short and has no wasted words, but it is under-specified to the point of being a fragment. It lacks a clear subject-verb structure and does not convey enough information to justify its brevity. This is closer to under-specification than effective conciseness.

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 with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns or how it behaves. 'Agent skill markdown for the public giveaway Worker' is too vague to give the agent enough context to know when to call it or what to do with the result. The sibling tool names suggest a family of runtime utilities, but this description does not situate itself among them.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter meanings to explain, and the description does not need to compensate for missing schema detail.

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 is a noun phrase—'Agent skill markdown for the public giveaway Worker'—rather than a statement with a verb and resource. It restates the word 'skill' from the tool name and vaguely suggests the tool provides markdown, but it never explicitly says what the tool does, what it returns, or how it differs from the sibling tools (health, stats, cite).

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus the siblings. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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