skill_validate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that the tool validates names/paths without revealing side effects, return behavior, or whether it is read-only. It does not confirm that no modifications occur or what happens on invalid input, leaving significant 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 redundant wording. Every word contributes to stating the tool's purpose and scope, making it appropriately 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 the tool's low complexity (one parameter), full schema coverage, and existing output schema, the description is sufficient on a basic level, but it leaves key behavioral aspects unclear, such as what exactly is validated (existence, format, accessibility) and what the result looks like. It meets the minimum viable threshold but has clear gaps.

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%, and the schema parameter description already explains that 'paths' accepts catalog names or absolute paths within configured skill roots, with snapshot precedence matching skill_find. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond this, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('catalog names or explicit skill paths beneath the working project'), making the tool's primary action evident. While it doesn't explicitly compare against siblings like skill_find or skill_read, the validation intent is distinct from other skill-related tools.

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 implies usage for checking whether catalog names or skill paths are valid, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as skill_find or skill_read. There is no when-not-to-use guidance, though the scope ('beneath the working project') gives some context.

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