skill_validate

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

The `readOnlyHint: true` annotation already establishes that this tool does not mutate state. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the result is deterministic, it enumerates the record contents, and it explicitly warns that semantic candidates are leads, never automatic delete decisions. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 compact and well-structured, leading with the core purpose, then providing the two usage modes, then adding the important safety-oriented caveat. Every sentence carries meaningful information and there is no redundant 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?

The description covers the main trigger, output modes, safety behavior, and return contents, and an output schema exists to fill in return shape details. The main gap is the unelaborated `include_archived` parameter, which prevents the definition from being fully self-sufficient for an agent.

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 must compensate. It explains the `name` parameter's effect well: with `name`, return a single record; without it, return an inventory. However, the `include_archived` parameter is never explained, and its interaction with the two output modes is left entirely to inference.

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 identifies the tool's specific purpose: validating ThreadKeeper-managed skills across supported CLI consumers. It distinguishes itself by detailing exactly what is returned with and without `name`, which separates it from sibling tools like `skill_list` and `skill_record`.

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 provides an explicit trigger: 'Curator must call this after every skill mutation.' It also clearly explains the two usage modes based on whether `name` is supplied. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer alternative sibling tools, so it misses the full when-not guidance.

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