describe_shared_skill

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose key behaviors such as read-only nature or response format. It only states 'describe', which implies a read operation but offers no details about side effects or return characteristics.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks essential information that could improve agent understanding. It is not overly verbose, but it is too minimal.

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 presence of similar sibling tools and the lack of output schema, the description should clarify the tool's return value and distinction from 'retrieve_shared_skill'. It fails to provide a complete picture for an AI agent to use correctly.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'name' parameter, its format, or how to specify the skill entry. The agent must rely solely on the parameter name 'Name' without additional guidance.

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 states the tool's action (describe) and resource (one skill entry from Shared Skills Registry). However, it does not differentiate from sibling 'retrieve_shared_skill', which may have similar functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_shared_skills', 'search_shared_skills', or 'retrieve_shared_skill'. This lack of usage context can lead to incorrect tool selection.

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