find_skill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states only what the tool does, without disclosing whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are required, rate limits, or any side effects or failure modes. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core action and scope immediately and is appropriately sized for a relatively simple tool.

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 the simple tool shape, 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete for correct invocation. It lacks only explicit usage guidance relative to siblings, which prevents a full score.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, syntax, or interpretation details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('agent skill') with a clear matching criterion ('matches a task') and scope ('across all repos' skill corpus'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_skills, which would enumerate rather than match against a task.

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 usage — call this when you need a skill that matches a task — but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. It does not mention when to prefer list_skills or route_task instead, leaving the agent to infer boundaries.

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