inventory_skills

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It clearly discloses the read-only retrieval behavior and the returned content (descriptions and paths), but does not explain matching semantics, staleness of the index, or output formatting. Acceptable but not rich.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and result, followed by a clear use-case statement. Every sentence earns its place and there is no wasted wording.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. It could be more complete by contrasting with inventory_search and noting whether the skill index depends on inventory_reindex.

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 schema already fully documents the single optional query parameter (关键词，可省), and schema description coverage is 100%. The description merely paraphrases this as '可按关键词筛', adding no new semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific action (检索) on a clear resource (技能库) and describes the output: descriptions and paths of all local skills with optional keyword filtering. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling inventory_search, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives an explicit, practical when-to-use cue: use it to check whether an existing skill can handle a task. It does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, which keeps it from a 5.

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