Search skills skills

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: results are ranked, and the return surface is name/description/category. This is useful context beyond the structured annotations and schema.

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 carry the core purpose, query semantics, return fields, and the recommended workflow. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 read-only search tool with an output schema, rich parameter descriptions, and readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent what to search on, what will be returned, and how to proceed to the next step. No critical missing context prevents correct invocation.

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 high (80%), so the schema already documents parameters well. The description adds value by clarifying what kinds of query terms are expected ('task, keyword, or trigger phrase'), which is a semantic cue not fully captured by the schema's 'What you need to do' phrasing. It does not need to repeat every parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Ranked search'), a clear resource ('the skills skill library'), and the input modalities ('by task, keyword, or trigger phrase'). It also differentiates from siblings by prescribing the follow-up flow to skills_get_skill. The awkward title does not undermine the clarity of the description.

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 clearly tells the agent when to use this tool first in a workflow ('Call this first, then skills_get_skill to load one'). It provides clear context for using search as an entry point, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling like skills_list_skills instead, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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