suggest_skills

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only analysis operation and specifies the criterion (skills not in current stack), but it doesn't clarify how 'current stack' is determined or whether there are any side effects. The safety profile is implied rather than stated.

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 that directly states the purpose. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

Even without an output schema or annotations, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to know when to invoke the tool and what to expect. It explains the input (stored job database) and the output concept (in-demand skills not in stack), though it doesn't specify output format or count. For a zero-parameter analysis tool, this is adequately complete.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly doesn't invent parameters; it focuses on the overall behavior. No additional parameter information is needed.

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 the tool analyses the stored job database to suggest in-demand skills not in the current stack, using specific verbs (analyse/suggest) and a clear resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch jobs, matches, or conferences.

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 when the user wants skill recommendations based on the job market, but it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. There is clear context but no guidance on when not to use this tool versus other job-related tools.

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