github_skills_suggest_skill_scaffold

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it uses 'closest existing skills as examples', which provides additional behavioral context but does not contradict annotations. No further behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, auth needs) are disclosed.

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 sentence that conveys the core purpose without any waste. Every word is meaningful.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters and an output schema, but the description is minimal. It does not explain what the scaffold contains, how grounding works, or the return structure. While the output schema likely covers return details, the description lacks sufficient contextual completeness for a tool with moderate complexity.

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% (description does not mention parameters). The input schema itself contains adequate descriptions for 'request', 'limit', and 'response_format', so the agent can rely on the schema. However, the description fails to compensate for the low coverage by adding any parameter context beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool creates a grounded starter scaffold for a new skill using closest existing skills as examples. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_skills_get_skill (retrieve), github_skills_install_skill (install), github_skills_list_repositories (list), and github_skills_search_skills (search).

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 the tool should be used when creating a new skill scaffold, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No when-not or exclusion guidance is provided.

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