Character skills and queue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful details beyond them: skill results are keyed by name/group rather than ids, and the queue includes finish times. It does not address failure modes such as an unknown character name or a missing ESI scope, so this is incremental value, not rich behavioral context.

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, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the one parameter worth explaining. Nothing is repeated from the schema and there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so concisely (grouping, names/levels, attributes, queue finish times) for a three-parameter read-only tool. A note on empty-result behavior or missing-scope errors would round it out.

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 the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by providing concrete example filter values that clarify substring matching across both skill name and group ('drone' matches a group, 'Gunnery' a skill). It does not restate the character or include_queue parameters, but the schema already handles those.

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 names a concrete resource (skill groups, attributes, training queue) and specifies the shape of the return ('names and levels, not ids'), which lets an agent distinguish it from most siblings. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from skill_check, which is the closest alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives explicit positive guidance for the filter parameter with real examples ('Gunnery', 'drone', 'Caldari') and states the queue default, which implies when to use it. It offers no when-not conditions and never mentions skill_check as the alternative for a single-skill query, so usage is implied rather than fully scoped.

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