Claude Agent Skills Search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that results are 'ranked by relevance' and include 'complete implementation guides, code examples, and best practices' which adds behavioral context beyond basic search. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or pagination behavior that would be important for a search tool.

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 appropriately front-loaded with core functionality but contains some redundant phrasing ('proven solutions' vs 'battle-tested patterns'). Sentences like 'Essential for leveraging battle-tested patterns...' and 'Perfect for finding reusable workflows...' could be more concise while maintaining value. The structure flows logically but could be tighter.

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 search tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and when to use it. However, it lacks details about the return format structure, error handling, or performance characteristics that would be helpful given the absence of an output schema.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'returns highly relevant skills' which aligns with the task_description parameter but doesn't provide extra guidance on parameter usage or interactions.

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 tool's purpose as searching and discovering Claude Agent Skills with specific outputs (implementation guides, code examples, best practices). It distinguishes from 'list_skills' by emphasizing search functionality and from 'read_skill_document' by returning multiple ranked results rather than reading a single document. However, it doesn't explicitly name these siblings for full differentiation.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('starting a new task, facing a coding challenge, or need specialized techniques') and includes examples of appropriate use cases. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, but the context strongly implies this is for discovery/search rather than listing or reading specific documents.

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