review_skill

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry the burden. It states the tool returns a 'confirmation that the review was recorded' and explains reviews help others. However, it doesn't disclose whether reviews can be updated or deleted, or if there are any side effects beyond recording. For a straightforward write operation, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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?

Four sentences with clear structure. Front-loaded with purpose, then return value, then usage guideline, then rating range. No unnecessary words, but could be slightly more concise.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately mentions the return type (confirmation). All parameters are explained, and the tool's role in the ecosystem (helping others decide) is noted. Adequate for a review tool with simple parameters.

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?

Input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters (slug, rating, comment). The description adds context about rating range (1-5) and examples for comment, but does not provide significant additional meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3.

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 purpose: 'Leave a rating and optional comment for a skill you have used.' It differentiates from sibling tools like get_skill or install_skill by being the only tool for reviewing. The verb 'review' plus resource 'skill' is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'after using a skill to share your experience.' Also advises against reviewing skills not actually used. While no alternative tools are mentioned, the context is clear and sufficient for an AI agent to decide to use this tool after skill use.

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