skill.findings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two genuinely useful traits: the auth requirement (MODELBOUND_API_KEY) and that results carry stable keys plus ignored_keys. However, it omits whether ignored findings are excluded, pagination behavior, and any read-only guarantee beyond the implicit 'List'.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the return shape and auth requirement. No filler, though the return-contents sentence is slightly terse given no output schema exists.

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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description gives a workable picture: what is listed, what comes back, and what auth is needed. It still leaves open what a 'finding' contains, whether ignored findings are filtered, and how skill_id is resolved.

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 single required parameter skill_id is undocumented in both schema and description. The description never clarifies whether skill_id is a local skill name, a cloud ID, or workspace-scoped, which is a real ambiguity for an agent.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List safety and quality findings for a skill.' It also names the return contents (findings, ignored_keys), which helps distinguish it from the ignore/unignore siblings, but it never explicitly differentiates itself from adjacent listing tools such as skills.checks.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites beyond the API key, and no routing to alternatives such as skill.ignoreFinding or skills.checks. The agent must infer the call context entirely from the tool name.

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