skill_help

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers real behavioral context: the task is delegated to an agent holding the skill, live agents are preferred, and the result is returned asynchronously via msg_recv. It omits failure behavior (what happens if no qualifying agent exists) and timing, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the purpose up front, followed by the routing detail in a colon clause. Dense and efficient, though the nested parenthetical and clause add slight load.

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?

Behavior and return channel are covered, which is valuable given no annotations and no output schema. However, with five undocumented parameters and no failure/fallback information, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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?

Five parameters with 0% schema description coverage, yet the description never maps or explains any of them (name, task, why, agent, api_key). An agent cannot tell from the text what 'name' identifies or what 'why'/'agent' are for, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'ask for help with a skill you can't run', and explains the routing mechanism (Commons hands the task to an agent that has used or holds it). It clarifies intent well but does not explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like skill, summon, or handoff.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition with three concrete cases (missing tool, access/environment, a skill only another agent has), so an agent knows when this applies. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., 'use skill directly if you can run it') or exclusions.

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