search_skills

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the search operation and keyword basis, without mentioning case sensitivity, partial matching, read-only nature, or return format. This leaves important behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 a single concise sentence that immediately states the action and scope. There is no redundant wording or fluff, and the key information is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple search 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 tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, the description is minimally viable but leaves gaps. It does not specify what aspects of skills are searched (e.g., name, description), nor the return structure since there is no output schema. More context would improve completeness, but it is not severely lacking.

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 already documents both parameters with descriptions (query as required string, limit with default and max). The description says 'by keyword,' which aligns with the query parameter but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the 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 'Search for skills by keyword' clearly specifies the verb (Search), the resource (skills), and the method (by keyword). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_skills, which enumerates skills without a query, and fetch_skill, which retrieves a specific skill. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_skills. It merely states the action without mentioning conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools. The usage context is only implied by the keyword-search behavior, not stated.

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