repository_manager_get_consolidated_skill_pathsRetrieve absolute paths to 15 building and documentation skills, enabling agents to locate and load the right skill files without manual path lookup.
Returns absolute paths to the 15 specific building and documentation skills.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only that the output consists of absolute paths scoped to 15 skills, but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, failure modes, or ordering.
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?
A single sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the return value. It is appropriately sized for a simple zero-parameter getter.
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 no parameters, an output schema, and annotations that cover safety, the description only needs to state what is returned. It does that clearly, though it omits any indication of when this tool should be preferred over adjacent documentation or project-map tools.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description correctly does not invent parameter details.
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?
Names a specific verb (Returns) and resource (absolute paths to building and documentation skills), making the basic operation clear. However, it does not differentiate from any sibling tool or explain what 'consolidated' or '15 specific skills' means beyond the output scope.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rm_docs_readiness_preview or repository_manager_get_project_map. It merely states what the tool returns, leaving all usage context to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.