architect_runtime_skills

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the description does not need to restate the safety profile. It adds useful context by describing the returned information and equating it to `skills status --json`, though it does not explain error behavior or exact return structure.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose. The parenthetical '(pack, price, store)' is slightly cryptic, and the second sentence relies on an external CLI reference, but there is little wasted wording.

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 read-only tool with one parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description provides an adequate overview of the returned skill-slot information. It relies on the external `skills status --json` shape for exact return values, which is helpful but not fully self-contained.

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?

There is one required parameter, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the workspace parameter. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, which warrants the baseline score.

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 identifies a specific resource, the workspace's skill slots, and states what information is returned: filled slots, empty slots, what fills empty ones, and install guidance. It is clear enough to distinguish this from general runtime status siblings, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not directly contrast itself with alternatives.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus sibling runtime tools such as architect_runtime_status or architect_runtime_plan. The reference to `skills status --json` implies a status-style query, but there is no explicit usage guidance or exclusion criteria.

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