author_skill

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by describing a read-only retrieval of guidance. It adds valuable context about the content (progressive disclosure, gotchas, measured-not-claimed gates, etc.) and notes the grounding in Claude Code's skill system, which goes beyond the annotation's simple safety hint.

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 two paragraphs, front-loaded with the key directive to read before create_skill. The second paragraph is dense but informative, listing the topics covered. Slightly long but each sentence earns its place; not padded.

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 purpose, content, and usage context well, but omits the meaning of the 'config' parameter and does not mention output format or that it requires no arguments. For a simple read-only guide with no output schema, this is a moderate gap, especially given the undocumented parameter.

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 input schema has one parameter 'config' with no description and 0% schema coverage. The description entirely fails to explain what 'config' is, whether it's needed, or what values it accepts, providing no compensation for the schema gap. This is a critical omission for an agent selecting or invoking the tool.

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 returns skill-authoring best practices and a SKILL.md template, and explicitly positions it as a prerequisite for create_skill. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_skill or read_skill_file, and the verb is specific ('Returns').

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 explicitly instructs to read this 'BEFORE authoring a new skill with create_skill' and says to 'Call this when the user asks you to create, port, or refactor a skill.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implicitly contrasts with create_skill and other mutation tools.

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