author_skill

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the payload is a guide plus a starter template, and the listed topics (progressive disclosure, gotchas, measured gates, self-learning loop, word-for-word import) tell the agent what it will get back.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded: the return value leads and the trigger condition follows. The topic list is dense but each item names a distinct section of the guide, so none of it is filler.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining the return payload, which it does. The only gap is that it doesn't say whether the content is static or user-scoped, but that is a minor omission for a documentation-return tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to convey and the baseline applies. Nothing in the description is needed to disambiguate arguments.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it returns Unilytics' skill-authoring guide plus a starter SKILL.md template, and it enumerates what the guide covers. That makes the payload concrete rather than a vague 'skill helper', though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like create_skill or get_skill.

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?

"Use when the user asks to create, port or restructure a skill" gives a clear triggering condition for an otherwise ambiguous-sounding tool. It stops short of an exclusion, so an agent could conceivably reach for create_skill instead, but the return-a-guide framing makes the intent readable.

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