create_skill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It details the files created (SKILL.md, tool.py, etc.) and the structure, which is good. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting existing skills, required permissions, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 well-organized with a clear intent statement followed by an args section. It is reasonably concise, though the 'Args' block could be tighter integrated into the main prose.

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 lack of annotations and presence of an output schema (not shown), the description provides sufficient context about the tool's purpose and generated artifacts. It could be more complete with details on return value format and conflict handling.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the tool's description explicitly lists and describes all three parameters (entity_key, failing_queries, intent) with meaningful context, adding value beyond the nullable schema.

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 creates a new skill from a capability gap (Evolution layer), with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'manage_skills' by focusing on generation from repeated failures.

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 specifies when to use the tool: when the system repeatedly fails on a topic. It implies a trigger condition but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives like updating an existing skill.

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