top_skills

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns the highest-trained skills, but does not describe ordering (e.g., by skill points or level), whether the result is a list or detailed objects, pagination, or authentication requirements beyond 'logged-in character.' It also adds the interpretive claim about 'fly well' but doesn't explain how to interpret the data. More behavioral context (e.g., 'returns a sorted list of skill typeIDs and levels') is needed.

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. It states the core purpose and a beneficial use case without unnecessary filler. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and no output schema.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), and the description gives the essential idea. However, the lack of an output schema and annotations means the description should clarify what 'highest-trained' means (e.g., by skill points or level) and what the response format looks like. While the tool seems straightforward, the ambiguity around 'highest-trained' and the absence of return details leave gaps that a more complete description could fill.

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 covers the single parameter 'limit' with a clear description ('How many skills (1-50)'), a default of 15, and min/max bounds. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any extra semantic detail about the parameter, but none is necessary because the schema fully explains it.

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 identifies the tool's output: the logged-in character's highest-trained skills. It implies a retrieval action (get/list) and specifies the resource (skills) and scope (logged-in character). It distinguishes from siblings like skill_queue (queue) and character_sheet (broader sheet), though it doesn't explicitly name them. The verb is implicit but the intent is unmistakable.

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 a use case: 'useful for judging what they can fly well.' This implies when to use it, but it does not mention alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools like can_i_fly or character_sheet might overlap, but no guidance is given for choosing between them. The usage context is clear enough for a simple tool, but lacks explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives.

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