search_skills

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are ranked by relevance and include projects, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, mention any authentication needs, rate limits, or edge cases like no matches. It is adequate 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 paragraphs: the main purpose and the args section. Every sentence adds value, and the examples are front-loaded. There is no waste, and the structure is efficient.

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's simplicity (single parameter, output schema exists), the description is complete. It explains the search behavior, relevance ranking, and inclusion of projects. Since an output schema is present, there is no need to detail return values.

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 input schema has a single parameter 'keyword' with 0% description coverage. The description compensates fully by providing clear examples ('e.g., "RAG", "Docker", "vector database", "iOS", "Next.js"') and explaining the expected format, which adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('skills/technology taxonomy'), states it returns matches ranked by relevance with projects, and provides example questions like 'does this person know RAG / Docker / vector databases / iOS development?' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools (list_projects, get_project_details, get_resume_summary).

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 explicitly says 'Use this to answer questions like...' which gives clear context for when to use the tool. While it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, the sibling tools are not related to skills search, so the context is sufficient.

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