validate_skill

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the non-mutating behavior, which is a key safety trait, but omits details like validation failure responses, permissions, or potential side effects beyond file mutation.

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?

A single, action-first sentence efficiently conveys purpose and key constraint ('without mutating files'), with no wasted words.

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?

The description is minimally sufficient for a simple validation tool with an output schema, but given the large set of sibling tools (35+), it could better contextualize when validation is appropriate vs other diagnostic or modification operations.

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 description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the input schema; terms like 'draft, canonical skill, or local skill path' hint at the 'skill_or_path' parameter but do not explain 'scope' or provide format/constraints. With 0% coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 action: 'Validate' specific types of skills/paths (draft, canonical, local) without mutating files, distinguishing it from many sibling tools that modify or create skills.

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 usage for validation tasks and notes no file mutation, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'get_skill_detail' or 'repair_skills', nor provide exclusions.

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