Search Gaia skills

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by noting that results are ranked and include trust/source freshness metadata, which is consistent with annotations. No contradictions.

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, no unnecessary words. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, the second adds output details. Highly efficient.

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?

Despite 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides minimal guidance. It does not explain how to use filters like kinds, tiers, minStars, or what 'trust' and 'source freshness' mean. For a search tool with many options, this is insufficient.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage (3 of 9 parameters have descriptions), the description does not compensate. It does not explain individual parameters like kinds, tiers, minStars, etc., beyond what the schema already provides. The output mention ('trust and source freshness metadata') does not clarify input parameters.

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 finds generic and named skills in the public Gaia Registry, with a specific verb ('Find') and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like gaia_inspect and gaia_status by focusing on search and return of ranked results.

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 implies use for finding skills but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gaia_inspect for details on a specific skill). No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided.

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