search_skills

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses how matching works (against name, description, keywords) and the category filter, which is useful. However, it does not mention result pagination, limits, case sensitivity, or whether the search is fuzzy/exact, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It states the primary action, the matching criteria, and the optional filter in a compact and scannable way.

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 relatively simple search tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core functionality (search by query, optional category filter). It could provide more context on return format or when to use over sibling tools, but given the low complexity, it is reasonably complete.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (query and category), and the description largely repeats that information. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action: 'Search skills by query string', and specifies the search scope (matches name, description, keywords) and an optional category filter. This distinctively separates it from siblings like list_skills (list all) and get_skill (retrieve specific).

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool (search by query, optionally filtered by category), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools. No 'use X instead' guidance is provided, but the context is sufficient for basic selection.

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