skill_cuilu

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions process steps (forging while inspecting, two quality gates) and cost (¥0.50/call), which adds transparency. However, it lacks details on side effects, permissions, or reversibility.

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 sentence plus cost note. It front-loads the tool name and key idea. However, the metaphorical language adds ambiguity, slightly reducing clarity for a bilingual audience.

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?

Given one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool does but not what the output looks like, how the dual inspection works in practice, or typical use cases. More context would help.

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?

With only one parameter 'query' and schema description coverage 100%, the schema already explains the parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating 'user input for this skill.'

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 it is a 'Skill forging and dual quality inspection engine' with specific verbs (forge, inspect) and resource (Skill). It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning dual gates (fact-checking and deep insight), but the metaphor '淬炉' may be unclear to some users.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not specify prerequisites, when not to use, or compare to sibling tools. The context of being a meta-skill for other skills is implied but not stated.

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