find_skills

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does meaningful work: it describes the cost profile ("Cheap") and the return shape ("names and one-line descriptions only"), which tells the agent this is a lightweight discovery call, not a content fetch. It does not mention permissions, failure modes, or result ordering, so it is not fully complete.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what a skill is, then the call pattern, then the cost/return note. Every sentence adds information an agent needs to choose and invoke the tool correctly; nothing is redundant.

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 two-parameter discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: the entity being searched, the search style, the follow-up tool, and the shape of results. The only omission is any hint about how limit affects behavior or how results are ranked.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the query parameter's intent well ("a few words about the task"), replacing the vague schema default of an empty string. However, the limit parameter and its default of 8 are never explained, leaving a real gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Find skills") and immediately defines what a skill is: "step-by-step know-how for kinds of Krita work," with example domains. It is clearly distinguished from the sibling use_skill, which it frames as the follow-up action rather than a competitor.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use guidance ("Search with a few words about the task") and explicitly routes to the alternative ("load the one that fits with use_skill"), establishing a clear two-step workflow. It lacks any when-not-to-use guidance, such as skipping the search when the skill name is already known.

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