kage_skills

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

The description reveals it writes files (non-read-only) and filters packets, matching idempotentHint. But it does not describe overwrite behavior or what happens on conflict, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 at four sentences, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence adds essential information without 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?

While the description covers the main action and parameters, it lacks details on return value or error handling. Given no output schema and the tool's write nature, additional clarity on outcomes would improve completeness.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no new semantic information beyond what is in the schema, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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's purpose: creating SKILL.md files from repo memory. It specifies the target location (.claude/skills/) and the selection criteria (only grounded, non-stale packets). This distinguishes it from siblings like kage_context or kage_decisions.

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 provides usage guidance by mentioning dry_run for previewing and dir for output override. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' or comparison with sibling tools, which would enhance differentiation.

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