skill-content

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

Annotations already provide read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive safety signals. The description adds deprecation status and an odd alias relationship, but does not disclose expected return behavior, failure modes, or any invocation-specific effects.

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 entire description is two short fragments with no redundant phrasing. Every part, the 'shorthand' framing and the deprecation notice, ear its place.

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 there is no output schema and the only parameter is undocumented, the description is too thin for safe invocation. It leaves the agent without a clear replacement, no output expectations, and no guidance about how the use of 'skill-content' relates to the other content-related siblings.

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?

The schema has a required 'ids' array, but the description provides zero explanation for it. With 0% schema description coverage, the description completely fails to help the agent understand what IDs mean, what format they take, or how they relate to 'skill' content.

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 identifies the tool as a shorthand for content with sectionType: skill, giving it a specific resource and scope. It does not state an explicit verb (fetch/list/retrieve), so the action is partly inferred, but the core purpose is still reasonably clear.

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 main usage signal is 'Deprecated; removal in 2.0.0', which suggests the agent should avoid using it, but no preferred replacement is named. Calling it 'Shorthand for content' hints at the sibling tool 'content', but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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