share_skill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the basic action but lacks details on side effects (e.g., overwrite, visibility), required permissions, or reversibility. The description is minimal and does not reveal important behavioral traits.

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 concise with one line for purpose and a clean args list. Every sentence adds value. It's well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

The description covers the core action and parameters adequately for a simple tool. However, it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., skill must be installed locally), success/failure signals, or error conditions. Given that an output schema exists but isn't shown, the description could be more complete.

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?

The description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema: 'skill_name: Name of the skill to share' and 'description: Optional description override'. Since schema coverage is 0%, this is valuable. The override note for 'description' clarifies its purpose over the default.

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 action ('Publish') and the resource ('locally installed skills' to 'team hub'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on sharing skills, which is unique among the listed sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other skill-related tools like 'adopt_vs_build'.

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 implies usage when wanting to share a skill with the team, but it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it, alternative approaches, or prerequisites. The usage context is implied but not elaborated.

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