analyze_skill

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that the tool extracts capability modules, tech stack, design patterns, implying a read-only analysis. However, it does not mention any side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or output format.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word adds value. No extraneous 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 simple tool with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not describe the return value structure or any constraints. While the tool is simple, without output schema, the description should at least hint at what the output looks like.

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 100% for the single parameter (skill_name). The description adds context about what is extracted but does not add meaning to the parameter itself (e.g., valid name formats, examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema covers parameter definition.

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: deeply analyze a specified skill, extracting capability modules, technology stack, design patterns. Verb and resource are specific. However, it does not distinguish from sibling analysis tools like analyze_evolution or compare_skills, which could lead to confusion.

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 versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, without any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context. With multiple sibling analysis tools, explicit usage guidelines are missing.

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