find_skills

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns gems with recommended supports, but does not cover ordering, pagination, error handling, or performance implications. The behavioral statement is helpful but incomplete.

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 concise, with a main sentence followed by brief explanations of key parameters. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words, but could be slightly more structured.

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 5 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description should cover all parameters. It covers only three partially, omitting 'query' and 'limit'. The presence of an output schema does not fully compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains gem_type, tag, and color values, but does not explain the 'query' parameter or 'limit'. This leaves two out of five parameters undocumented, which is a significant gap.

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 purpose: finding skill/support gems by text, tag, color, or type. It identifies the resource (gems) and the filtering criteria, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'find_supports_for'.

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 specific values for gem_type, tag, and color, giving some guidance on how to use the tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_supports_for', and does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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