pika_skills

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes the operation as 'List available' and gives examples, implying a read-only, non-destructive action. For a simple listing tool, this is transparent enough; there is no hidden behavior or side effects to disclose.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, followed by illustrative examples. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 that this is a no-parameter listing tool and an output schema exists, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know. It lists example skills, conveys the tool's scope, and does not need to explain return values since the output schema is present.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description adds nothing about parameters because none exist, which is appropriate. The schema itself is empty, so there is no gap to compensate for.

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 function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('available Pika creative skills'), and provides concrete examples. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pika_generate or pika_build_brand, which execute specific skills rather than listing them.

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 tool has a clear and obvious purpose: to list available skills. While it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, its role as a discovery/listing tool is unambiguous given the sibling tool names. The context is sufficiently clear, and no exclusions are necessary.

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