skillNinja_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'matching skills with trust badges and recommendations,' which hints at output format but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, error handling, or authentication needs. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

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 concise sentences: one for the core function and one for output details. The Japanese translation adds redundancy but doesn't significantly hinder clarity. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, though the translation could be considered extraneous in some contexts.

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 (search function with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and output hints but lacks behavioral details like error cases or performance expectations. For a search tool without structured output documentation, it should provide more context on return values and usage constraints to be fully adequate.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'query' parameter documented as 'Search query (skill name, description, or category).' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as query syntax examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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: 'Search for Agent Skills by keyword' specifies the verb (search) and resource (Agent Skills), and 'Returns matching skills with trust badges and recommendations' adds output details. It distinguishes from siblings like 'skillNinja_list' (which likely lists without search) and 'skillNinja_webSearch' (which might search web sources). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'skillNinja_recommend' (which might provide recommendations without search).

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. It mentions returning 'trust badges and recommendations,' but doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferred over other tools like 'skillNinja_list' for browsing or 'skillNinja_recommend' for recommendations. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving usage context implied at best.

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