ck_skill_evolution

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds context that it produces a 'draft' and mentions anti-patterns and practices, but does not clarify whether output is persisted or how 'ready-to-merge' is achieved, so it adds minimal value beyond annotations.

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?

Single, well-structured sentence of 20 words that front-loads the action ('Synthesize'). Every phrase serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema (stated but not shown) and thorough annotations, the description is adequate. However, it lacks details on what 'skill-evolution packet' entails, prerequisites (e.g., availability of traces), or how the draft is merged, which could leave an agent with incomplete context.

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 description coverage is 83%, with only one parameter (current_skill_content) lacking a description. The overall description does not elaborate on parameter usage or relationships, so it adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's existing annotations.

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 uses specific verbs ('Synthesize') and resources ('skill-evolution packet', 'anti-patterns', 'ready-to-merge skill draft'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like ck_skill_list and ck_skill_load.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ck_skill_validate or ck_experience_index. The description implies usage with 'recent traces and recurring failure clusters' but does not specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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