Generate an instruction string from skill names to prepend to an agent task, telling the agent which skills to use.
Build an instruction string for agent delegation from a list of skill names. Returns a string like "Make sure to use the following skills: 'arxiv', 'fred-economics'" that can be prepended to an agent task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skill_names | Yes | List of skill names to include in the context string |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the exact return format with a concrete example, which is the core behavior an agent needs to know. It does not cover error handling or validation of skill names, but for a simple string-building utility this is a minor gap.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The action, purpose, and an illustrative output example are all included efficiently, and the example is positioned right after the action statement.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what input it takes, what it returns, and how the return value should be used. Nothing essential is missing for a 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 coverage is 100% and the parameter is already described as a list of skill names. The description adds value by showing exactly how the skill names are rendered (quoted, comma-separated, preceded by fixed instruction text), which helps the agent anticipate the output.
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 uses a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('instruction string for agent delegation'), and specifies the input (list of skill names) and output (a string that can be prepended to an agent task). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like run_skill or list_skills.
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 the intended use clear by explaining the result is for agent delegation and can be prepended to an agent task. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is direct enough for an agent to recognize the appropriate scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.