search_skills

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the input (natural language task description) and output (full content of relevant skill documents), which implies a read-only search operation. It does not describe ordering guarantees or indexing behavior, but that is acceptable for a straightforward search 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action and output are front-loaded, and the usage timing is stated at the end without unnecessary detail.

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 two-parameter search tool without an output schema, the description covers the input format, output behavior, and when to invoke it. The limit parameter is already documented in the schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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 parameters are already well documented: query as a natural language description and limit with default and maximum. The description adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly specifies the verb 'Search', the resource 'skill library', and the return value 'most relevant skill documents with full content'. The search-vs-index purpose is unambiguous even without naming the sibling tool refresh_index.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Call this BEFORE starting any coding task to get specialized guidance'. This provides a strong trigger condition, though it does not name alternatives or describe when not to use it.

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