skills.convert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the conversion process through a canonical representation and notes that omitting outPath returns the converted body without writing. However, it does not address error handling, overwrite behavior, or side effects, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 extremely concise with two sentences: the first states the core purpose with an example, the second explains the internal representation. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should explain return values more thoroughly. It mentions returning the converted body but not the format (e.g., string). It also omits error states and prerequisites. For a relatively simple tool, it covers core functionality but lacks completeness in edge cases.

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 75% (missing path description). The description indirectly implies path is the file path, but does not explicitly define it. It adds no additional parameter details beyond the schema, and for the undocumented path parameter, the description does not compensate fully. Baseline for high coverage is 3.

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 verb 'convert' and resource 'skill file', with an example IDE format conversion (cursor → claude). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like skills.lint or skills.diff by specifying the conversion action and internal canonical representation.

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 an example but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to convert vs. when to lint or diff. No prerequisites or limitations are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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