skill_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'Read-only' adds no new safety information. The description adds context about the contents (level, counts, etc.) but does not disclose additional behaviors like potential errors or prerequisites beyond 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?

The description is a single sentence with essential keywords. No fluff or redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Readiness report') and then lists the key output fields. Highly efficient.

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 there is an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. It lists the main fields returned. The one required parameter is straightforward. Minor gap: no mention of what happens if the skill_id is invalid, but overall it is complete enough for a simple read-only tool.

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 100% with a clear description for the single parameter 'book_id' ('Skill id.'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is 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 it is a 'Readiness report' and lists specific data points (level, counts, license, path on disk). The verb is implied (get/retrieve) and the resource is a skill's status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'skill_search' or 'library_list' which serve different purposes.

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 only states 'Read-only' which implies it is safe to call, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternative tools. An agent could infer based on the data it returns, but no direct comparison or exclusions are provided.

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