Skill Demand Heatmap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered externally. The description contributes the metric definition (pct of jobs per skill x role), which is genuine context, but says nothing about granularity, aggregation scope, or default sizing.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the core metric is front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the undefined parameter.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the shape of the result; it only implies a matrix without saying whether it returns rows, a grid, or serialized cells. Combined with the undocumented 'limit', it is not complete enough to invoke confidently.

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% and the single parameter 'limit' is never mentioned in the description. With no explanation of what limit bounds (skills, roles, cells) or its default of null, the agent must guess its meaning entirely.

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 states what is computed (skill demand as a percentage of jobs per skill x role), which is more than a restatement of the title. However, it never uses a verb like 'compute' or 'return', and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling analyze tool explore_top_skills, which also deals with skill demand.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no condition under which this heatmap is preferable to explore_top_skills, and no mention of prerequisites or data assumptions. The agent gets no routing help.

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