recommend_skills

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavior: it returns 5 ranked skills with specific fields. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') and no side effects. The description adds clarity about the recommendation logic (context-based, excluding installed skills) beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Three sentences that are front-loaded: first sentence states the primary action and output, second gives usage guidance, third provides exclusions and requirements. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description details the exact output structure. It covers purpose, usage, exclusions, and parameter descriptions. Combined with high schema coverage, the tool is fully specified for correct 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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters well-described. The description reinforces the context parameter's importance and explains the purpose of the installed parameter (to exclude already installed skills). This adds value beyond the schema by linking parameters to usage intent.

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 the tool's function: 'Get personalized skill recommendations based on a project description.' It specifies the output format (JSON array of 5 skills) and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool search_skills, eliminating ambiguity.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use scenarios ('when starting a new project to discover relevant tools, or when you need capabilities beyond your current toolset') and when-not-to-use ('Do not use this for searching by keyword'), along with a direct alternative (search_skills). Also notes the requirement for a descriptive context string.

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