validate_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 states the tool returns a list of issues and a validity flag, which is helpful, but does not explicitly confirm it has no side effects (e.g., no file modification) or discuss permissions or rate limits.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides usage context and return information—efficient and well-structured.

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 has one well-described parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it returns and when to use it. Differentiation from sibling tools is not explicit but implied through usage context. It is complete for a simple validation tool.

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 only parameter (skill_path) with a description that matches the tool's purpose. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no further parameter details beyond what the schema provides.

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 validates a SKILL.md file for structure, naming conventions, and completeness, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. While it does not explicitly name sibling tools, the context implies it is a validation step before testing, distinguishing it from tools like run_skill_test or generate_skill_tests.

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 explicitly instructs to call this tool 'after writing or editing a SKILL.md before running tests,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for related tasks.

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