generate_skill

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

The description discloses that the tool writes files to disk (SKILL.md, scripts, playbook) and returns content or an error. This adds behavioral context beyond the idempotentHint annotation, which is already present. No contradictions.

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 three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, side effects, and return value. No extraneous words; 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?

The description covers purpose, side effects, and return format. It lacks explicit mention of prerequisites (e.g., module existence) but is sufficient for an agent with access to the schema and annotations. Output schema exists, so return details are covered.

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%, and the description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. The schema already describes module_name and install_to adequately, so a 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 explicitly states 'Generate a skill package for one module,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_collection_skills, generate_plugin_skill, and generate_role_skill by focusing on a single module.

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 implies usage for a single module, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_collection_skills for collections. However, the sibling names provide context, making the intention clear.

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