Reorder skills

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the side effect (reordering) and the return value ('verified skills state'), but it does not clarify whether the reorder is persistent, destructive, or subject to any authorization requirements.

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 that states the operation and the return behavior with no filler. It is appropriately compact for the apparent simplicity of the tool.

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?

Without annotations or an output schema, the description still leaves important details unexplained: what values belong in 'order', what 'top skills' means, and what 'verified skills state' represents. The description is too sparse to fully support correct invocation.

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%, so the description must explain the 'order' parameter, but it never states whether the array contains skill IDs, names, or a subset of skills. The tool name and the verb 'reorders' allow some inference, but the exact expected values and format are left ambiguous.

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 uses a clear verb ('reorders') and identifies the resource ('top skills'), while adding a specific ordering rule ('newest first'). It is distinguishable in intent from sibling skills tools like add_skill, remove_skill, and endorse_skill, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 gives no indication of when to use this tool instead of alternatives like add_skill, remove_skill, or endorse_skill. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusion cases to guide selection.

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