Agent Skills MCP

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context: it specifies the tool creates scaffolds 'grounded in similar GitHub skills' and uses 'closest existing skills as examples,' clarifying the grounding mechanism beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions with annotations.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Create a grounded starter scaffold') and purpose ('using the closest existing skills as examples'). No wasted words or redundant 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (creation with grounding), rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It could improve by detailing parameter interactions or error cases, but it adequately complements the structured data.

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 0%, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'closest existing skills as examples,' which hints at the 'limit' parameter for grounding, but doesn't explain 'request' (user capability) or 'response_format.' With 1 parameter (nested object with 3 sub-parameters), the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('grounded starter scaffold for a new skill'), specifying it uses existing skills as examples. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_skill' (retrieval) or 'install_skill' (deployment), but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'search_skills' (which might find similar skills without creating scaffolds).

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 starting a new skill development by leveraging examples, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'search_skills' for discovery or 'list_repositories' for raw data. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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