Validate Skill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'validate format completeness', which is a restatement of purpose. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens on invalid input, whether it returns detailed errors, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a validation tool without annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It conveys the core purpose efficiently without fluff.

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?

The tool is simple (1 parameter, no output schema), but the description does not explain return values or validation outcomes. The agent cannot infer whether validation returns a boolean, a report, or throws an exception. Missing output semantics and usage context make the description incomplete.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'name' (described as 'Skill 名称'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('validate') and the resource ('Skill file'), and specifies the focus ('format completeness'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'soloflow_get_skill' and 'soloflow_run_skill' by focusing on validation, and from 'soloflow_validate_flow' by targeting skills rather than flows.

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: use this tool to check a Skill file's format completeness. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'use this before running a skill' or 'use soloflow_validate_flow for flows'). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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