kilo_validate_skillsRun a read-only skill validation for Kilo-Kit to produce a concise quality-gate summary and flag issues without modifying files.
Run the Kilo-Kit skill validator and return a concise quality-gate summary. This is read-only and does not modify files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so 'read-only and does not modify files' largely restates structured data. The only added value is the vague hint that it returns a 'quality-gate summary', with no detail on what that contains.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the safety note. No wasted text, though the tiny size also reflects thin content rather than tight editing.
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 simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description establishes purpose and safety but omits what 'skills' are being validated (all of them? a target?), what the quality-gate summary includes, and the meaning of the format parameter. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 sole parameter 'format' (enum markdown/json) has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden of explaining it — yet it never mentions output format at all. An agent cannot learn from the description what the format option controls.
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 and resource ('Run the Kilo-Kit skill validator') plus the nature of the output ('concise quality-gate summary'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like kilo_synthesize_skill or kilo_search_skills, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.
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 says what the tool is but never states when to invoke it or how it relates to alternatives such as kilo_synthesize_skill or kilo_get_skill. Usage must be inferred entirely by the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.