fork_skill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the fork is independent, that the original remains unchanged, and that both versions appear in list_skills. These are concrete behavioral details. It does not cover error conditions or permission requirements, but for a copy operation this is adequate.

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, front-loaded with the core action and purpose, followed by a relevant example and side effect. No wasted words.

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 simple copy operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage scenario, and a key side effect (appears in list_skills). It lacks error handling or return behavior, but the essentials are present.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds naming guidance ('Use something descriptive like listing-writer-luxury') and clarifies the default pattern, which is slight value beyond the schema but not substantial.

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 action ('Create an independent copy of a skill under a new name') with a specific resource (skill) and purpose (specialized variant). It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the original stays unchanged and that both appear in list_skills, making its role unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly says when to use it: 'Use this when you want a specialized variant (e.g. listing-writer-luxury) while keeping the original unchanged.' This provides clear context, though it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would make it a 5.

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