skill_run

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining the preview-then-confirm mutation workflow, the return of exit code and captured output, and the important behavioral note that a non-zero exit is a normal, reported outcome rather than an error. These details are not visible in annotations alone and materially help the agent use the tool correctly.

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?

Three compact sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return behavior, and the confirm workflow. The most important operational guidance is front-loaded, with no repetition or filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: it explains what is executed, what is returned, how to interpret exit codes, and how to safely run via the confirm flow. The remaining details are already captured in the input schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds no significant parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as the fact that args is an array. Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.

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 and resource: 'Execute a script the skill DECLARES as runnable, with an argument array.' This clearly distinguishes skill_run from its siblings (skill_list, skill_load, skill_file) by focusing on execution of declared runnable scripts rather than listing, loading, or file operations.

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 context for use: preview first without confirm, then execute with confirm: true. It also notes that non-zero exits are normal outcomes, which guides interpretation. It does not explicitly name when not to use the tool or the alternatives, but the workflow guidance is clear and actionable.

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