findSkills

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches by keyword but doesn't describe what the search returns (e.g., list of skills, metadata, pagination), performance characteristics, error conditions, or authentication needs. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence in Spanish that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Busca skills') and includes essential context ('en el ecosistema skills.sh por palabra clave'). Every part of the sentence contributes meaning, making it appropriately concise.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., a list, details, or IDs), how results are structured, or any limitations (e.g., max results, sorting). For a search tool with no structured output information, the description should provide more context about the expected behavior and results.

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 description adds minimal semantic context beyond the input schema. It mentions 'por palabra clave' (by keyword), which aligns with the 'query' parameter's description ('Palabra clave para buscar skills'). However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the parameter well. The description doesn't provide additional details like query syntax, examples, or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Busca skills en el ecosistema skills.sh por palabra clave' (Search for skills in the skills.sh ecosystem by keyword). It specifies the verb ('busca' - search), resource ('skills'), and scope ('ecosistema skills.sh'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'selectSkill' or 'analyzeProjectStack', which might also involve skill selection or analysis.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'selectSkill' (which might pick a specific skill) or 'analyzeProjectStack' (which might analyze project dependencies). The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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