keywords

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden — and it delivers: it discloses the return value (full keywords array), the source resolution (SKILL.md vs. skill file), and the two accepted path shapes. It doesn't cover error/empty-path behavior, but for a simple read-only lookup that is a minor gap rather than a serious one.

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?

Three sentences with zero filler: the verb+resource statement is front-loaded, the second sentence explains resolution behavior, and the third gives the practical use case. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the return value, the two input path semantics, and the intended use case. The only real omission is the shape of the returned array, but the description's 'full keywords array' phrasing plus a low-complexity surface makes this adequately complete.

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% — the schema already documents the dot-separated format with concrete examples and the no-.md-extension rule. The description reinforces the same examples but adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource pair ('Retrieve the full keywords array for a specific category or skill') and immediately clarifies the two path types. The closing phrase 'without reading the full content' explicitly differentiates it from the sibling `read` tool, so an agent can tell them apart without opening any schemas.

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 clear context: use this to understand what terms a skill covers without loading full content, and it explains how category vs. skill paths resolve. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, but the contrast with `read` is implied strongly enough for a 1-parameter lookup tool.

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