manage_skills

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the conditional behavior of promote (promote if >= 0.7, prune if <= 0.3) and the fitness score range. Missing details like permissions or side effects, but adequate for agent understanding.

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 and well-structured: a brief intro, bullet list of actions, then Args. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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's multi-action complexity and no output schema shown, the description sufficiently covers all operations. Parameters are fully explained, and actions are well-described.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It defines action as an enum ('list | benchmark | promote') and clarifies that skill_id is required for benchmark and promote actions, adding significant meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition.

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 it manages the CogOps skill lifecycle, listing specific actions (list, benchmark, promote) with distinct purposes. It differentiates from sibling tools, none of which appear to handle skill lifecycle management.

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 explains each action's purpose and conditions (e.g., promote based on fitness thresholds). However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or compare it to alternatives, leaving some implicit guidance.

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