Run Skill

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the Skill follows its CoSTAR framework to guide AI output and supports gacha mode. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, return format, or whether the operation is asynchronous, leaving some behavioral ambiguity for a run/execute tool.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is efficiently structured and avoids redundancy.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, the CoSTAR framework behavior, and the gacha mode. It does not explain return values explicitly, but the mention of 'AI 输出' implies output. It is reasonably complete for a run tool, though it could benefit from mentioning prerequisites or alternatives.

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 coverage is 100% for all three parameters (skill, task, count), so the schema already documents them. The description adds marginal value by explaining '抽卡模式' relates to count, but it does not provide deeper semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 verb+resource: '使用指定的 Skill 执行一个任务' (Execute a task using a specified Skill), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_flow and run_agent by focusing on Skills. It also adds specific context about CoSTAR and gacha mode, making the purpose 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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you have a Skill and want to execute a task. It implies the need for a named Skill and mentions the optional gacha mode for multiple versions. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., run_flow for flows) or state when not to use it.

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