detect_technology_skills

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'using the configured registry', but does not state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or how it interacts with the registry.

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 sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the primary purpose. It is concise and easy to parse, though it sacrifices informational depth.

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?

With two required parameters and no annotation coverage, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain parameter relationships, expected behavior, or constraints. While an output schema exists, it does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics and behavioral details.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It references 'project scopes' which maps to the 'scopes' parameter, but 'project_root' is completely unexplained, and no additional meaning is given for either parameter beyond the schema names.

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 uses a specific verb ('Detect') and resource ('required technology skills for project scopes'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like skill_list or skill_find. However, the meaning of 'required' and how detection works could be more explicit, preventing a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, even though sibling tools occupy related skill-management functionality.

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