skill_validate

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so 'without modifying it' largely restates the annotation. The description adds the concept of two validation profiles, which is useful, but says nothing about outcome behavior (errors vs. diagnostics) or scope limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that carries the verb, resource, criteria, and non-mutating guarantee with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, an agent cannot learn what a validation run returns (pass/fail structure, diagnostics). For a validation tool this is a meaningful gap, though the readOnlyHint and fully described params cover the invocation side.

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 path rules, the profile enum, and workspace_path semantics are already fully documented in the schema. The description only alludes to the two profiles and adds no syntax or default detail (e.g. the anthropic default).

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?

States a specific verb (validate) and resource (native skill file) with the criteria it checks against (Anthropic or portable requirements). The verb 'validate' cleanly separates it from install/remove/list siblings without ambiguity.

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 phrase 'without modifying it' implicitly signals this is the non-mutating counterpart to skill_install, but no sibling is named and no when-to-use trigger is given (e.g. before install, after editing). Usage must be inferred.

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