knowl_skill_run

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

Annotations already flag openWorldHint and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond them: edits to the package revoke approval, autoRun is not the default, and refusals must be surfaced to the user rather than bypassed. It does not contradict the 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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, approval requirement, autoRun condition, and refusal handling. The core verb+resource is front-loaded in the first sentence, and there is no 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 code-executing tool with destructiveHint/openWorldHint and no output schema, the description covers the critical decision flow (approval, autoRun, refusal behavior) thoroughly. The only gap is the success return value, since no output schema exists to document it.

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 fully documents name, args, and entrypoint — including the script-vs-shell distinction for args. The description adds no param-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Run an approved learned-skill entrypoint.' This clearly differentiates the tool from its siblings (knowl_skill_list, knowl_skill_read, knowl_skill_create) as the execution tool, and adds the distinguishing constraint that only approved skills with autoRun: true execute.

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 explicitly states the preconditions for use — prior user approval via `knowl skill approve <name>` and author-set autoRun: true — and the when-not path: if refused, relay the approval command instead of attempting a workaround. This gives an agent an unambiguous decision procedure.

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