repair_skills

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'plan or apply' but does not explain destructive potential, required permissions, or side effects. The parameter 'remove_orphan_targets' suggests removal, but no warning is given.

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?

At one sentence, it is concise but lacks structure. It could benefit from a second sentence or bullet points to clarify the two modes. It is not overly verbose, but the brevity sacrifices completeness.

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 2 parameters and an output schema, the description should cover behavior, return details, and side effects. It only mentions 'repair' in an abstract sense, leaving the agent with many unknowns about input/output and state changes.

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 0%, meaning parameters are not described. The description does not explain 'dry_run' or 'remove_orphan_targets' beyond what the names imply. The 'plan or apply' hint loosely connects to the parameters, but lacks explicit mapping.

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 specifies 'repair for orphan native skill targets' with a clear verb ('repair') and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'cleanup_skill' by focusing on orphan native skills and a planned/apply approach. However, the jargon 'managed-only' and 'orphan native skill targets' may reduce clarity.

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 versus alternatives like 'doctor' or 'cleanup_skill'. The description implies it is for orphan native skills but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or when to prefer other tools.

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