skill-search

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the fixed 'sectionType=skill' semantic and the lifecycle status. This is appropriate for a thin deprecated alias.

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 two short sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the main semantic ('shorthand for search with sectionType: skill') and communicates the deprecation and removal version. Every sentence earns 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?

The description clearly tells the agent what the tool is and why not to use it, but it leaves the agent without any description of return values or parameter details. Given the absence of an output schema and 7 unannotated parameters, the description is a bit too terseained to be fully complete in context.

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?

With 7 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it only mentions the implicit 'sectionType=skill'. It does not clarify 'algo', 'mode', 'docid', 'limit', 'offset', or 'relaxed', although enum names and parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory. This is insufficient for a tool with such a low coverage rate.

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 states exactly what the tool is: a shorthand for 'search' with sectionType fixed to 'skill'. It distinguishes itself from the generic 'search' sibling and from other 'skill-*' tools by naming the parent operation and the filtering constraint, while also flagging its deprecated status.

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 gives an explicit when-not-to-use signal: it is deprecated and scheduled for removal. It also identifiers the alternative by describing the tool as 'shorthand for search', implying that the full 'search' tool should be used instead.

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