skill_status

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 says nothing about side effects, read-only vs. destructive nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a status-checking tool, this is a significant omission.

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 extremely short (two words), but this is under-specification rather than concise efficiency. It burdens the agent with guessing the tool's purpose and parameters. The word 'status' is repeated from the name, adding no information.

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 tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. It provides no sense of return value, error conditions, or operational context. Given the sibling tools that suggest a broader workflow, this description leaves an agent fundamentally unable to use it correctly.

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%, and the description does not mention any of the four parameters. The schema provides only names and types, not meaning or usage context. An agent must guess what 'job_id' or 'request_id' refer to and how they relate to the skill status operation.

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 'skill status' is essentially a restatement of the tool name. It provides no verb, no resource, and no indication of what action is performed. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'status' or 'job' — an agent cannot tell what 'skill status' actually does.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools named 'status', 'job', and 'knowledge_command_status' suggest overlapping functionality, but the description gives no context, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites or preferred conditions.

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