Discovers complementary skills to pair with a specified skill for a goal, helping agents identify what to chain next.
Find complementary skills for a goal
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "weave_ask"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal | No | ||
| skill_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses essentially nothing: not whether the operation is read-only, what it returns (a list of skills? ranked matches?), whether it requires a registered skill, or any rate/permission constraints. "Find" weakly implies a read, but that is the only signal.
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?
It is a single brief phrase with zero padding, which is good, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. There is no structure beyond the one clause, and nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing to front-load.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is the only source of meaning and it supplies a single vague clause. For a two-parameter skill-discovery tool sitting among eight siblings, this is far from sufficient for correct invocation.
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% for both parameters. The word "goal" maps to the goal parameter, but the description never explains what skill_id does, whether it is an input or an output, or how the two relate (e.g. seed skill used to find complements). The other parameter is entirely undocumented in both schema and description.
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?
States a verb ("Find") and a resource ("complementary skills") tied to a goal, so the intent is graspable, but "complementary" is undefined and nothing distinguishes it from sibling tools like search or weave_reference. An agent cannot tell from the text alone which sibling to pick.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no named alternatives among the many siblings (search, weave_reference, usage). The agent is left to infer that this is the skill-recommendation path rather than a lookup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.