jev_route_skills

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

Annotations are sparse (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, no destructive hint), so the description carries extra weight. It adds value by clarifying non-execution, non-installation, and uncertainty handling, which is behavior beyond the structured annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by constraints and exclusions. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose.

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?

Given 3 params, no output schema, and modest annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's role, constraints, and output behavior (one suggestion, no-match/uncertainty allowed). It could be more explicit about the exact output format, but it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 mostly reinforces what the schema already states (e.g., 'at most 19 complete candidate descriptions' matches maxItems and candidate description). It does not add significant new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Suggest') and resource ('one host-confirmed skill') with clear input constraints ('from at most 19 complete candidate descriptions'). It also distinguishes from siblings by scope ('skill' vs tools, 'Not a per-message hook') and explicitly excludes actions like install/load/execute/scan.

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 gives clear context for use: selecting a skill from host-confirmed candidates, preserving required skills, allowing no-match/uncertainty. It provides exclusions ('Does not install, load, execute or scan skills', 'Not a per-message hook'), though it does not name alternative tools explicitly.

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