Extract Skills From Text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context beyond those annotations: an extraction permission requirement and the possibility of consuming a limited quota, which matters for planning calls. It stops short of explaining what happens when quota is exhausted or how rate limiting manifests.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with no filler. The quota sentence is slightly hedged ('may consume a limited quota'), which is imprecise but still relevant, so nothing is genuinely wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a tool with three undocumented parameters and a confidence-threshold knob, the definition says nothing about how the threshold or version alter results, leaving a meaningful gap before invocation.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description carries the burden of explaining them and does not. The 'version' parameter (default 'latest') and 'confidence_threshold' (0-1, default 0.5) are the parameters most in need of meaning — how the threshold affects which skills are returned — and neither is mentioned.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Extract ... skills from text') and adds a meaningful scope qualifier, 'explicitly mentioned,' which signals it does not infer implied skills. It does not distinguish this from close siblings such as normalize_title_and_extract_skills or analyze_job_posting_skills, leaving an agent to guess which extraction entry point to use.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many sibling extraction/normalization tools. The phrase 'explicitly mentioned' implies a boundary (no inference), but the agent must infer that itself rather than being told directly.

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