match_skill

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

With no annotations, the description discloses output format (confidence score, tools) and a behavioral instruction to verify tool availability. This is sufficient for a read-only search tool, though it could mention behavior for no matches.

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?

Two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: first explains what the tool does and returns, second provides actionable guidance. No wasted words.

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 2 simple parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, output, and a usage hint. It lacks details on edge cases but is complete for typical use.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds only an example for query. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already explains parameter semantics.

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 finds best skills for a task and returns confidence scores and required tools. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_skill (retrieve specific) and list_skills (list all).

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 a clear usage context: to find skills for a task. It also gives a post-invocation guideline to check required tools before loading. However, it lacks explicit comparison to siblings or when not to use this tool.

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