skills-master-mcp

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and behavior. The description adds context about the marketplace scope and return format (skills with name, description, author, stars, GitHub URL), but does not disclose additional traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination details beyond what annotations imply.

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 appropriately sized with two paragraphs: one for purpose and one for parameters/returns. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, but could be more concise by integrating parameter details more seamlessly rather than a separate list.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, annotations covering key behaviors, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose, parameters, and return values, though it could benefit from more usage guidance relative to siblings.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description lists parameters with examples and defaults, but adds minimal meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'query' example 'fastapi', 'react testing' is similar to schema's 'SEO', 'web scraper'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 clearly states the tool searches the 'SkillsMP marketplace for AI coding skills by keywords', specifying both the action (search) and resource (AI coding skills in SkillsMP marketplace). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'install_skill', 'read_skill', and 'remove_skill' which perform different operations on skills, and from 'ai_search' which likely has a different scope or method.

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 searching skills by keywords, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ai_search' or other siblings. It provides context for searching the marketplace but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or comparisons with other tools.

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