compare_skills

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action and outputs, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the comparison is read-only, has side effects, requires permissions, or handles missing skills. The lack of any behavioral context makes it insufficient.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences with no redundant information. Every word adds value.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It could include details about error handling or prerequisites, but it is complete enough for a basic comparison 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions ('基础技能名称', '候选技能名称'). The description adds the output structure but does not add new meaning beyond the schema for the parameters themselves. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it compares two skills and lists specific outputs (common abilities, unique abilities, improvement points, suggested priorities). It distinguishes from siblings like 'analyze_evolution' or 'compose_skills' by specifying a direct comparison of two skills.

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 implies when to use (comparing two skills) but gives no guidance on when not to use or alternatives. Sibling tools like 'analyze_skill' or 'recommend_combo' could be related, but no explicit differentiation is provided.

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