agentskill-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('Returns matching skills with name, description, rating, and install count'), which is helpful, but lacks critical details like pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose. Every word earns its place, though it could be slightly more informative without losing efficiency. It's appropriately sized for a search tool.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and return fields but misses behavioral traits (e.g., safety, limits), usage context versus siblings, and deeper parameter insights. For a tool with this complexity, it should provide more guidance to the agent.

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 already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with additional context like example queries or platform nuances.

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 action ('Search for AI agent skills') and resource ('on agentskill.sh'), with specific verb+resource pairing. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_skill' (which likely retrieves a specific skill) and 'get_trending' (which likely shows popular skills), but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'install_skill' beyond the different action. The purpose is specific but could be more differentiated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_skill' or 'get_trending'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from tool names alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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