View Skills

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, yet the description asserts the tool "configure[s] their invocation settings" and lets users "toggle assistant/user invocation" — an explicit mutation claim. That inconsistency directly misleads an agent about side effects, and the description adds no compensating disclosure (no persistence semantics, no delimitation from skill-display-update-invocation).

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 with the action front-loaded and no filler — efficiently sized for the call. The second sentence, however, spends its words on behavior that belongs to a sibling tool, so not every sentence fully 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the empty parameter set is trivially covered. What is missing is a correct account of the tool's effect and its boundary against skill-display-update-invocation, both of which the current text muddies.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No param-level meaning is needed or missing.

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?

It gives a concrete verb+resource ("Open the skill display UI to view available skills"), which is clear enough on its own. However, it then claims the tool also exists to "configure their invocation settings," territory that sibling tools skill-display-update-invocation and skill-display-reset-override own, so the boundary with siblings is blurred rather than sharpened.

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?

A trigger is supplied ("Use when user wants to see skills or toggle assistant/user invocation"), which is more than most definitions offer. But no when-not condition or alternative is named, and half the stated trigger ("toggle invocation") points at a different tool, so the guidance can misroute the agent.

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