run_skill_test

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

Given no annotations, the description fully discloses the two-phase execution, detailing what each phase checks (tool calls, file ops, etc. in Phase 1; LLM-as-judge for rubric in Phase 2) and notes the cost implication of Phase 2. This is transparent about behavior and resource usage.

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 concise, using only four sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core action and phases, then provides usage timing and an optimization tip. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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 has 5 parameters, 1 required, and no output schema. The description adequately covers the two-phase process and the optional rubric skip. While it doesn't explain output format or logging, the description is sufficient given the tool's complexity and the presence of sibling tools for other tasks.

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 schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the 'no_rubric' parameter's purpose and effect beyond the schema description, clarifying it enables faster checks without LLM cost. This extra context aids selection and invocation.

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 tool runs a skill test suite against a SKILL.md and distinguishes between two evaluation phases. The verb 'run' plus the noun 'skill test suite' specifically identifies the purpose, and the two-phase detail sets it apart from sibling tools like 'validate_skill' or 'run_check'.

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 includes explicit guidance on when to call the tool: 'after writing skill tests or after any change to the skill or agent.' It also provides a conditional use case with '--no-rubric' for fast checks. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest specific alternatives from the sibling list.

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