request_skill_optimization

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns a plan and can be followed directly, but does not explicitly confirm that it makes no modifications or that it is read-only. This leaves slight ambiguity, though the 'prepare and return' phrasing implies a non-destructive operation.

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 well-structured with a one-sentence purpose, followed by usage guidelines, workflow steps, trigger signals, and parameter descriptions. Every sentence adds value, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description provides a complete picture: it explains the tool's output (a step-by-step plan), the recommended workflow including pre- and post-steps, and trigger signals. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but the description still conveys the nature of the output.

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 0% parameter description coverage, but the description adds thorough explanations for all three parameters: skill_name (optimize or create), feedback (triggering input), and context (optional details). This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 'Prepare and return a structured optimization plan for a skill.' It differentiates from siblings by providing a workflow that involves triage_skill_request and save_skill, making the tool's role distinct.

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 description explicitly says 'Call this when user feedback indicates a skill needs improvement or a new skill should be created.' It also provides a recommended workflow and lists trigger signals, giving clear guidance on when to use the tool and what to do before/after.

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