lpm_package_skills

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the read-only nature (getting skills), version resolution behavior, and the scope (author-written). It does not mention error handling or permissions, but given the simplicity of the operation, this is adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and adding essential usage context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is highly concise considering the information conveyed.

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 tool with 2 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, content of return, usage context, and version behavior. It could clarify the output format but is otherwise complete for most use cases.

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 100%, with both parameters having clear descriptions. The tool description mentions version-specific behavior and automatic resolution, which only partially adds to what the schema already says. The description does not significantly enhance parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 gets 'author-written Agent Skills' for an LPM package, listing specific content types (usage patterns, anti-patterns, gotchas, best practices). This differentiates it from sibling tools like lpm_package_info or lpm_docs, especially with the explicit use-case 'when BUILDING with an already-installed package'.

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 explicitly says 'use this when BUILDING with an already-installed package' and mentions that skills are version-specific with automatic resolution from package.json. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the context strongly implies it.

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