skeleton_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the output is a report of counts and distributions, which is mild useful context, but it discloses nothing about auth, cost, or error behavior beyond that.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and the reported contents enumerated in parentheses, which is exactly the shape of value-dense reporting.

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 read-only inspection tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the parenthetical enumeration of what the report contains partly substitutes for a return-value spec. Nothing critical for invoking it correctly is missing.

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 100%: project, workdir, and language are each documented in the schema with defaults and fallback behavior. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb (view) and resource (engine-generated skeleton) and enumerates the reported contents: slot count, distribution of the two key-setting methods, per-file split. It does not distinguish itself from sibling status tools such as project_status or agent_status, so an agent gets the resource but no disambiguation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says to call this after generating a skeleton, before packing, or instead of sibling inspection tools like scan or plan. Usage is only inferable from the name and the 'engine-generated skeleton' phrasing.

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