Search Skills

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the search scope (name or description), the compact result format, and that include_description controls the preview. But it omits behavior around the limit and owner parameters, and doesn't describe pagination, sorting, or error/null-result behavior, leaving meaningful transparency gaps.

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 short sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the verb, resource, and search scope, while the second adds the most critical behavior (return format, include_description effect, and query length constraint). Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a 4-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core search and result shape but omits details on owner and limit parameters, and doesn't distinguish when to use this versus sibling tools beyond the single 'use this' line. It is sufficient for basic usage but not fully complete given the schema/annotation void.

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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It adds meaningful semantics for query (keyword in name or description, min 2 chars) and include_description (returns preview if true). However, it gives no explanation for limit (max results) or owner (filtering), leaving half the parameters under-specified in a zero-coverage schema context.

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 ('Search') with a clear resource ('agent skills') and scope ('by keyword (name or description)'). It also immediately distinguishes itself from siblings like list_skills (which implies listing all) and load_skill (which implies loading a full skill), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use this to find a skill for a task.' It clearly indicates the intended use case. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as list_skills or load_skill, so it stops short of a 5.

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