generate_skill

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

The description fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It does not mention that generating skills might overwrite existing files, require permissions, or have other side effects. Since annotations carry the destructive hint, the description adds no explanatory value.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the primary action, and the second explains the mechanism and output. Every sentence is meaningful, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool has two well-documented parameters and a destructiveHint annotation, the description covers the basic input and output but lacks details on the generated files (SKILL.md structure), the DO/INSTEAD rules, and potential side effects of destruction. It is adequate but incomplete for a mutation tool.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context by linking the 'tags' parameter to clustering failure patterns, which enriches understanding. It also implicitly references 'minOccurrences' by mentioning minimum occurrences, though the default is already in 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 auto-generates Claude skills from feedback patterns by clustering failures and producing SKILL.md files. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like capture_feedback or feedback_stats.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use when there are repeated feedback patterns, but does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for related tasks like self-distillation or lesson inference.

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