skill-learn

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

Annotations already report idempotentHit and non-destructive, so the description need not repeat those. It adds important behavioral context: skills are prompt templates, placeholders use the {{argName}} syntax, and the tool is deprecated with a planned removal version. This goes beyond the structured annotations and describes useful runtime behavior.

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 definition is two sentences and includes a definition, a domain example (placeholder syntax), and a deprecation warning. No word is wasted, and important lifecycle info is placed near the end where it does not obscure the core purpose. This is appropriately sized and cleanly structured.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is incomplete for full usage: only the placeholder mechanism is explained, and most parameter semantics are absent. That said, the deprecation note and the phrase 'shorthand for learn' delegate detailed usage to the non-deprecated sibling, making the description enough for an agent to route the call without tripping over undocumented params.

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%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It successfully describes the core param for writing template-like content, but there are 7 parameters (tags, type, docid, title, replace, description, content) and only content is touched. The sectionType: skill hint indirectly relates to type, but the rest are unexplained. This is a clear gap.

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 explicitly states that the tool is 'Shorthand for learn with sectionType: skill', clearly naming the target resource (skills) and the verb/action (learning). It also defines what a skill is—a prompt template with {{argName}} placeholders—which separates it from other section types. It is not a full descriptive definition, so it does not earn a 5.

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 makes usage context clear: this is a shorthand for a specific variant of `learn`. 'Deprecated; removal in 2.0.0' provides a clear reason not to use this tool when a newer direct alternative exists. However, it does not explicitly say 'use learn instead' nor does it state conditions for choosing among other sibling tools, stopping short of a 5.

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