save_debug_skill

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool saves to a knowledge base and returns a confirmation, but does not disclose if it overwrites existing skills, requires authentication, or other side effects. This is acceptable for a straightforward save operation but lacks depth.

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 two focused paragraphs. The first states the purpose and usage context, and the second lists parameters in a clear Args format. There is no wasted text; every sentence serves a purpose.

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 7 required parameters and no schema descriptions, the description covers all aspects adequately, including return value. However, it could be more complete by noting whether the tool checks for duplicate names or has any prerequisites (e.g., being connected to a debug session).

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter, including name format ('kebab-case'), category options ('memory, fault, peripheral, timing, rtos, general'), and the purpose of keywords, symptoms, etc. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though some descriptions (e.g., keywords) remain brief.

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: 'Save a new debug skill to the knowledge base.' It specifies the exact resource (debug skill) and action (save), and distinguishes from siblings like list_debug_skills, get_debug_skill, and search_debug_skills by focusing on creation.

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 advises when to use the tool: 'Call this after successfully debugging a new type of issue to capture the experience for future reuse.' This provides explicit context, though it does not mention when not to use or alternative tools. However, siblings do not overlap significantly.

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