skill.compareVersions

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the MODELBOUND_API_KEY requirement, which is valuable, but does not state whether the operation is read-only (though implied by 'compare'), what the output looks like, or any other constraints.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. The auth requirement is a useful addition. The description is efficient, though terse given the gaps in other dimensions.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits parameter semantics, usage guidelines, and behavioral details beyond the API key requirement. An agent would have to infer much from the name and schema alone.

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%, and the description adds no meaning for the three parameters (skill_id, to_version, from_version). It implies two versions are being compared but does not explain defaults, formats, or which are required beyond the schema's required marker.

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?

States a specific verb (Compare) and resource (skill versions), with a helpful example of 'latest vs current'. It distinguishes from skill.versions (which lists versions), but does not explicitly differentiate from skill.diff, which may also compare content.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like skill.diff or skill.versions. Only an auth prerequisite is mentioned; there is no context about appropriate scenarios or exclusions.

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