Search Skills

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that results include name, description, author, stars, and GitHub URL, and explains pagination defaults and sorting. This extends transparency without contradiction.

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, starting with the purpose then listing parameters in a structured bullet-like format. It uses clear labels and examples without extraneous text. Could slightly benefit from better paragraph flow.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers basic functionality (return fields, pagination, sorting) but lacks details on error handling, empty results, or rate limits. It is adequate for a simple search tool but not fully comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats schema descriptions for query, page, limit, sort_by and adds examples (e.g., 'fastapi', 'react testing') and clarifies defaults. However, no new semantic meaning beyond schema is provided.

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 explicitly states the tool searches 'SkillsMP marketplace for AI coding skills by keywords', providing a specific verb (search) and resource (marketplace for coding skills). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like skillsmp_install_skill or skillsmp_list_repo_skills by focusing on 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 sibling tools like skillsmp_ai_search or skillsmp_list_repo_skills. It lacks explicit advice on contexts or alternatives, leaving selection to the agent without criteria.

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