aci_find_skills

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool searches, returns skills ranked by confidence, and includes steps and author, which is meaningful beyond the schema. It does not discuss empty-result behavior or potential side effects, but 'Search ... Returns' implies a read 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 two purposeful sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, gives an example, and then states the output and a preference rule, so 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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, use case, output content, and ranking behavior. It could be more complete with explicit sibling routing or empty-result behavior, but it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces 'intent' with a natural-language example and explains the purpose of the search, but it adds little beyond the schema for 'k'.

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 names a specific action ('Search the shared SKILL library by intent'), a concrete use case, and a worked example ('how to draft an arbitration notice'). It also distinguishes the tool's output by 'ranked by EARNED confidence (ψ)', making its role clear.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool 'before doing a task' and to prefer a high-confidence existing skill over improvising, which gives clear when-to-use context. It does not name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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