status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with this by using 'Show'. It adds context about what aspects of the state are visible (loaded skills, weights, recent sessions), which is valuable beyond the annotation. No contradictions.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose and immediately lists the key components, earning the maximum score for efficiency.

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 simple zero-parameter read-only status tool, the description is sufficiently complete. It names the core content areas (loaded skills, weights, recent sessions). While it doesn't specify output format or provide deeper details, the simplicity of the tool makes this acceptable. Sibling tools like 'stats' exist, but the description distinguishes the knowledge graph focus.

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?

There are 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters but effectively communicates the scope of the operation by listing what will be shown.

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 shows superskill knowledge graph state with specific components (loaded skills, weights, recent sessions). It uses a specific verb 'Show' and a resource, differentiating it from sibling tools like 'stats' or 'skill_list_installed' which likely focus on different aspects.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when an agent needs to inspect the current state of the superskill knowledge graph. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for basic selection.

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