suggest_skill_for_task

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: it states it is read-only, does not return skill bodies, only names, scores, and personas fraction. The annotation readOnlyHint: true is reinforced and expanded with details about no shell, no writes, and what is returned.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each clause adds value. The mention of the host dropping 402 entries provides context but could be trimmed; still it's justified as it explains why this tool exists.

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 no output schema, the description informs the agent what is returned (names, scores, personas) and the read-only behavior. It is complete for a recommendation tool with two parameters that are fully described in schema. The additional context about the catalogue gap adds necessary usage context.

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 already fully describes both parameters (task as string, limit with default and min). The description adds that it ranks by a deterministic keyword scorer, which hints at how task is used, but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. Baseline of 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 matches a free-form task description to relevant skills via a deterministic keyword scorer over SKILL.md frontmatter, and it differentiates from siblings by focusing on task-based search rather than name-based listing (like list_skills). It is specific about verb, resource, and mechanism.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: when a skill is not in the catalogue the host delivered, and explains asking by name is impossible while asking by task works. It also implies when not to use (when you can name the skill) and gives a concrete scenario, distinguishing it from alternatives.

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