ck_skill_evolution

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

The description states the tool can write files (install mode), but annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which is contradictory. According to the rules, a contradiction between description and annotations warrants a score of 1, regardless of the description's honesty. The tool also preserves previous files as .bak, which is disclosed, but the core contradiction remains.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. It is clear and avoids excess, though somewhat lengthy. Every sentence earns its place, but minor tightening could improve conciseness.

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 complexity (8 parameters, two modes, output schema exists), the description covers the core functionality. However, the annotation contradiction undermines completeness, and the description does not explain the output schema or the nature of the 'packet' in enough detail to be fully self-contained. It is adequate but has gaps.

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 88%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by explaining the effects of validate_only and install, but these are already described in the schema. One parameter (current_skill_content) lacks both schema and description coverage, but overall the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb 'synthesize' and identifies the resource 'skill-evolution packet', clearly stating it produces a deduplicated packet from traces and failure clusters. It also distinguishes two key modes (validate_only and install), differentiating it from sibling tools like ck_skill_validate which presumably only validates.

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 implies usage for evolving skills but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ck_skill_validate or ck_skill_list. It explains the two modes (validate_only and install) which are specific to this tool, but lacks when-not-to-use guidance or explicit alternative references.

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