skill_find

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds a meaningful behavioral detail ('precedence-resolved'), which hints at resolution logic, but it does not disclose failure modes (e.g., what happens if the skill is not found) or any side effects. The schema's parameter description covers the input constraint, but the description could still mention error handling.

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, direct sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the verb and resource, making the purpose immediately clear. Every word contributes to meaning.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly defines the output (a SKILL.md path) and the tool's role (resolving by name). It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists. Minor gap: it doesn't explain when a user might need this versus other skill tools, but overall it's complete for its simplicity.

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%: the single parameter 'name' is fully described as 'Exact frontmatter name in the current catalog snapshot.' The description adds no additional parameter information. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('SKILL.md path') with a clear qualifier ('precedence-resolved absolute') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like skill_list (which lists skills) and skill_read (which reads content). It is unambiguous and exactly what the tool does.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as skill_read or skill_load. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The name 'find' implies locating a path, but the context is not explicitly stated.

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