skill_shijin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the cost (¥0.50/call), which is helpful, but fails to describe whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies state, what returns are expected, or authentication requirements. This is insufficient for safe use.

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 a single sentence that includes the tool's purpose, branding, and cost. It is concise and front-loaded, with no redundant information. Slightly more detail could be added without harming conciseness.

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 the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns and how to interpret results. It does not, leaving the agent guessing about the output format and behavior. Not complete enough for effective use.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the parameter 'query' has a basic description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., what format the query should be in). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Skill质量试金石，一键检测Skill是否达到上架标准' (quality touchstone to check if a skill meets listing standards). It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource, and the sibling tools (e.g., discover_skills, get_skill_detail) are sufficiently distinguished.

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 use for testing skill quality for listing, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives (e.g., when to prefer this over discover_skills or get_skill_detail). No exclusions or context are mentioned.

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