find_skill

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only mentions 'returning a raw_url' but omits side effects (though 'find' implies read-only), authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior when no match is found. This leaves significant transparency gaps, similar to the 'update_drive' example.

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 with no redundant content. It clearly states the action, object, criteria, and result, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple nature of the tool, the description provides the essential return value (raw_url) and search criteria (query/filters). However, it lacks details on how to construct filters, expected parameter names, or potential limitations, making it only minimally complete for an agent to use confidently.

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 zero defined properties and only allows additionalProperties, so the description compensates by mentioning 'query and filters' as conceptual inputs. This adds meaning beyond the empty schema, though exact parameter names/formats are not specified. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, which 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Find') with a clear object ('SKILL.md') and specifies the output ('raw_url'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'search_docs' or 'doc_search_text' by focusing on SKILL.md files, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage when a SKILL.md needs to be found via query/filters, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., 'use search_docs for regular docs') or state when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, earning a mid-range score.

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