skill_check_resolution

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context—it doesn't confirm whether the tool actually calls pikvm_get_resolution or just returns instructions. It adds no value beyond the annotations.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it is unclear and does not earn its place. It could be restructured to clearly state the tool's action and output.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description should at least explain what the tool returns or does concretely. It only references another tool ('pikvm_get_resolution') without clarifying its own behavior. The tool feels incomplete for an AI agent to use 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info, but it could have explained the tool's self-contained nature. It doesn't contradict the schema.

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 calls itself a 'guide for checking screen resolution with pikvm_get_resolution', which is vague. It does not clearly state what the tool does—whether it executes the resolution check or provides instructions. The name 'skill_check_resolution' suggests an actionable workflow, but the description reads as a meta-reference.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pikvm_get_resolution or other skill_* tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria.

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