skill_trigger_eval

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

With no annotations provided, the description adequately discloses behaviors: it declares the tool as read-only and deterministic, and describes the return value (ranked list with trigger reasons). This adds useful context beyond the schema, though it could mention potential rate limits or prerequisites.

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 extremely concise, with three sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the action, the use case, and behavioral attributes. There is no redundant or extraneous content.

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?

The description covers the return format (ranked list with reasons) and behavior (read-only, deterministic). Since there is no output schema, this information is valuable. However, it does not discuss error handling or edge cases, which would make it more complete for a debugging tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add much for parameters. The description reiterates the purpose of 'message' and 'context' but does not provide additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already says. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: scoring a user message against the compiled router and returning matching skills with reasons. It uses specific verbs ('score', 'return') and explicitly mentions the use case for debugging trigger coverage, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_skills' or 'compile_router'.

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 provides a clear use case ('Use to predict which skills a given message would activate, for debugging trigger coverage'), giving context on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, which would have improved the score.

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