search_skillselion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions ranking by community signal but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive. While search is inherently safe, the description could be more transparent about side effects or permissions.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and key features. Every sentence adds distinct value: first sentence explains what is searched and ranking, second gives usage examples and links to sibling tool. No wasted words.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and integration with a sibling tool. The lack of return value description is acceptable as no output schema exists, but additional behavioral details could improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds value by explaining that 'query' can be a tool, framework, task, or keyword, and that 'type' restricts to one listing. It also provides context on ranking, which enhances understanding of results, though it doesn't directly enrich parameter definitions.

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 'Search' and the resource 'Skillselion directory' of skills, MCPs, and marketplaces. It differentiates from 'load_skill' by specifying that browsing is for searching, not using. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from 'synthesize_skills' or 'top_skillselion'.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use to browse trusted skills/MCPs/marketplaces for the task at hand' and when to call 'load_skill' instead. Example queries are given. It does not mention alternatives for other sibling tools, but the core use case is covered.

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