Configure Skills

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only that the tool surfaces an interactive UI rather than returning data, which is mild extra context; it says nothing about what the UI does or how the call resolves.

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?

Two short sentences, action first, trigger second, zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and with no parameters and full annotation coverage the definition is nearly complete. The only shortfall is the absence of disambiguation from the sibling skill-config-* mutation tools.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter surface for the description to explain or compensate for, and none 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Open the skills directory configuration UI.' That is concrete and distinguishes this as the UI-opening tool. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many skill-config-* siblings that perform the underlying add/remove operations, and the second sentence blurs that line.

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?

It gives a when-to-use trigger ('Use when user wants to configure, add, or remove skill directories'), which is more than nothing. But it names no alternatives or exclusions, and the overlap with siblings like skill-config-add-directory and skill-config-remove-directory risks misrouting the agent to this UI tool when a direct mutation tool is intended.

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