skill_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the dual-mode behavior (list vs. inspect specific skill) and mentions 'full instructions and metadata' as the return content, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose details like whether the output is verbose, whether it requires an active workspace, or what happens if the skill name is invalid. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Inspect available Pi skills') and then states the alternative mode. Every word earns its place, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 read-only inspection tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the two modes of operation and the schema covers the 'name' parameter's behavior. The main gap is the undocumented 'workspace_id' parameter, which is required and could confuse an agent about its role. Since the tool is simple and annotations cover safety, this is a minor gap.

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 50%: the 'name' parameter is well-described ('Name of the skill to inspect. Omit to list all available skills.'), but 'workspace_id' has no description beyond its type. The tool description adds the context that the tool inspects 'Pi skills' and that omitting name lists all, which aligns with the schema. However, it doesn't explain what workspace_id means or how it relates to the skill lookup, so the description doesn't fully compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 the tool's function: inspecting available Pi skills or retrieving full instructions and metadata for a specific skill. It uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('Pi skills'), and the dual-mode behavior (list all vs. get one) is explicit. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the sibling list contains general workspace tools (read, ls, find, grep) rather than skill-specific tools, so the purpose is distinct enough.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need to see available skills or get details on a specific skill. The input schema reinforces this by saying 'Omit to list all available skills.' However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'use read to view skill files directly'), so it falls 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.