skill_import_url

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

Beyond annotations (openWorldHint=true, not read-only), the description adds critical behavioral details: size caps, SSRF guards, no paywall bypass, untrusted content. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Description is concise with 4 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. No redundant or extraneous information.

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 complexity (7 params, output schema exists), the description adequately covers the main behavior but lacks details on parameter defaults, error scenarios, and the exact format of the built skill. The output schema helps but isn't referenced.

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 low (43%). The tool description only adds context for the 'url' parameter (size-capped, SSRF-guarded). Other parameters like title, authors, book_id, domains are left without semantic enrichment, requiring the agent to infer from parameter names alone.

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 fetches a public http(s) URL, extracts text, and builds a skill into the library. It distinguishes from sibling tools like skill_import_file (file-based import) and skill_search (search, not import).

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 context: fetch public http(s) URLs, prefers public-domain sources, and warns against paywalls/logins. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' or direct comparison with alternatives like skill_import_file.

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