civil3d_skills

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly labels the tool as read-only ('Browse and read', 'read-only public API metadata search'), implying no state changes. It also notes that execution happens via sibling tools, which further clarifies that this tool itself does not modify anything. The absence of side-effect warnings is acceptable given the read-only framing.

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 three concise sentences, each adding critical information: the core purpose, the list of actions, and the relationship to sibling tools. It front-loads the main purpose and avoids redundancy or filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only tool with four actions, the description is nearly complete. It explains the actions, implies the output (list of skills, search results, full skill content, API metadata), and points to the execution siblings. While it doesn't detail pagination or output structure, those are typically understood and the schema covers cursor details. The description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so all eight parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds contextual meaning (e.g., what 'get' does, that api_lookup is read-only) but does not explain parameter syntax or constraints beyond the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Browse and read Civil 3D code skills') and immediately enumerates the four supported actions (list, search, get, api_lookup). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by noting that skills 'can be adapted and execute via civil3d_execute or civil3d_query.' This clearly sets its scope apart.

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 explains the tool's role as a browsing/reading layer and explicitly points to the sibling tools for execution. It also differentiates between read actions (list/search/get) and the read-only metadata api_lookup. While it doesn't list explicit 'when not to use' scenarios, the purpose is clear enough for an agent to decide between this and its siblings.

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