knowl_skill_create

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

Annotations are minimal (only openWorldHint: false), so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions 'create and index a file-backed skill', which implies mutation and file creation, but it does not disclose potential side effects such as overwriting existing skills, failure conditions, or any permission requirements. The description is too sparse to adequately inform the agent about the tool's behavioral traits beyond the basic create action.

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 that is both concise and front-loaded with the core purpose and usage condition. There is no fluff or redundant information; it earns its place by immediately conveying the tool's function and when to use it.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested objects like files and entrypoints) and the absence of an output schema, the description is relatively short and does not cover important contextual aspects such as return values, success criteria, or how this tool relates to siblings like knowl_update. While the schema is very detailed, the description leaves gaps around operational context that an agent would benefit from.

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%, meaning all six parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, so it relies on the schema. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high and the description does not add extra semantic value.

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 a specific action: 'Create and index a learned file-backed skill'. It also includes a conditional clause ('only when the user explicitly requested a reusable workflow to be codified') that distinguishes its use from general-purpose tools. This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from siblings like knowl_skill_list or knowl_skill_run.

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 an explicit condition for when to use the tool: 'only when the user explicitly requested a reusable workflow to be codified'. This is a clear 'when' and implies a 'when-not' (don't use otherwise). However, it does not name any alternative tools (e.g., knowl_update for modifying existing skills), so it lacks explicit alternatives, which would make it a 5.

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