skills catalog status

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral context: refresh=true forces a rescan of skills directories. This goes beyond the schema and annotations by disclosing a potentially expensive or state-changing behavior within an otherwise read-only operation. No contradiction with 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?

Two brief sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and returned data, and the second adds the key behavioral option. Every word 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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering read-only behavior, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role. The main gap is the undocumented include_warnings parameter, but given the low complexity and existing output schema, the description is still reasonably complete.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explicitly explains refresh=true, but it does not explain include_warnings, which is only vaguely implied by the mention of frontmatter warnings. With two parameters and one undocumented, the description only partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as providing catalog statistics, listing specific data points (libraries, skill count, files, last scan, frontmatter warnings). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools that search, list, or fetch specific catalog items, though it does not explicitly name the verb 'get' or 'retrieve'.

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 this tool is for inspecting catalog health and statistics rather than searching or listing resources, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over siblings or provide exclusions. The refresh hint gives one concrete usage scenario, but overall guidance is left to inference.

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