skill.validate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Return actionable diagnostics' hints at a read-only validation behavior, but it does not disclose side effects, error conditions, authentication requirements, or what makes the diagnostics 'actionable.' The description adds little beyond the obvious implication of the tool name.

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 filler or repetition. Every word contributes to the stated purpose, making it highly concise even though other dimensions lack 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?

The tool is low-complexity and has an output schema, but the definition is still incomplete for invocation: it lacks parameter semantics, usage context, and behavioral detail. An agent would not know what value to pass for skill_id or when this tool is the correct choice.

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 schema has one parameter, skill_id, with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions how to identify the skill package to validate. It does not explain whether skill_id is required, how null behaves, or what happens when it is omitted, leaving the agent to guess from the property title alone.

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 action ('Return') and resource ('diagnostics for declarative skill packages'), moving beyond the tool name. It differentiates this from sibling read/manipulation tools like skill.get and skill.list by focusing on diagnostics, though it doesn't explicitly say 'validates'.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool over skill.list, skill.get, or persona.validate. The phrase 'for declarative skill packages' loosely implies scope, but there is no explanation of prerequisites, exclusions, or when an agent should choose an alternative.

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