validate_skill

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, what happens if the file is missing, or any required permissions. The description only states it validates and returns errors/warnings, lacking critical behavioral context.

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 that is front-loaded and to the point. It contains no unnecessary words or filler, and every part of the sentence adds value.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the function and the type of output (errors/warnings). However, it could mention whether the file must exist or what rules are checked, but these are minor omissions.

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?

The single parameter 'skill_name' has 100% schema coverage, and its description in the schema matches the tool description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies since schema coverage is high.

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?

Description clearly states the tool validates a SKILL.md file against specific rules and returns errors/warnings. The verb 'validates' and resource 'SKILL.md' are precise, and the output ('errors + warnings') is specified. It distinguishes from siblings like 'evaluate_skill' and 'get_skill' by focusing on validation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like evaluate_skill or get_skill. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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