snippkit_search_skills

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only lookup but does not disclose result ordering/relevance, what a skill record contains, default result behavior, or whether the search is exact-match or keyword-based across fields — all meaningful to an agent planning a query loop.

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 well-formed sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the missing guidance rather than a virtue in itself.

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 three-parameter, zero-required search tool with fully described parameters and no output schema, the description covers the what but not the returns or the relationship to the get_skill sibling. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would need to resolve by trial.

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 description coverage is 100%: query, limit (1–25, default 10), and the agent enum are all documented inline with examples. The description adds no additional semantics such as matching rules or how the agent filter interacts with query. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Search') with a named resource ('SnippKit AI Skills Registry') and clarifies the content types (agent capabilities, procedural rules, autonomous instructions). It does not differentiate itself from sibling search tools such as snippkit_search_commands or snippkit_search_snippets, so an agent must infer the distinction from names alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of the sibling retrieval tools (snippkit_get_skill, snippkit_search_commands). Usage is only implied by the verb 'Search'. An agent gets no routing signal for choosing this tool over the other registry searches or the get_* lookups.

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