skillNinja_updateIndex

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool updates the index and fetches from GitHub, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, error handling, or what happens to existing data. For a tool that likely modifies data, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 and front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence. The second sentence adds useful detail about GitHub sources. The Japanese translation is redundant but doesn't significantly bloat the text. Every sentence earns its place, though the translation could be omitted for better efficiency.

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 a likely mutating operation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails (e.g., overwrite, merge), the response format, error conditions, or dependencies on other tools like skillNinja_addSource. For a tool with potential side effects, more behavioral context is needed.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it appropriately avoids discussing any. It adds value by describing the action's scope ('from all registered sources') and source ('GitHub repositories'), which goes beyond the empty schema. Baseline for zero params is 4.

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: 'Update the skill index from all registered sources. Fetches latest skills from GitHub repositories.' It specifies the verb ('update'), resource ('skill index'), and scope ('from all registered sources'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like skillNinja_addSource or skillNinja_list. The Japanese translation adds no semantic value but doesn't detract.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions fetching from GitHub repositories, but it doesn't clarify prerequisites (e.g., whether sources must be registered first), frequency, or when to choose this over other tools like skillNinja_addSource for adding individual sources. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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