skill_trigger

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'skill trigger' reveals nothing about side effects, permissions, payload requirements, or return behavior. This is a serious gap for a mutation-like tool with 10 parameters.

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?

While the description is extremely short, this is under-specification, not conciseness. It omits essential information and is far from minimally viable for a tool with this parameter count and no other documentation.

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?

Completely inadequate. Ten parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a tautological description. An agent cannot determine what this tool does, how to call it, or what the expected outcome is. It is not viable for safe invocation.

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 adds zero explanation for any of the 10 parameters. The agent has no idea what 'trigger_text', 'skill_name', or 'payload' mean in this context. The description does nothing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 is a tautology ('skill trigger' restates the tool name). It provides no verb, resource, or scope information that would distinguish it from the many sibling tools like skill_status or skill_events.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. None of the 80+ sibling tools are referenced or compared, and no context for appropriate invocation is given.

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