where_used_skill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation and 'Roles never appear' is a useful output-behavior disclosure, but there is no mention of auth requirements, errors, or side-effect safety beyond the implication of 'list.'

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 short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded and the second sentence provides a meaningful exclusion without bloating the text.

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 one-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description covers the core behavior and an important output exclusion. It could use more guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings, but it is largely complete for straightforward invocation.

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 should compensate by explaining the skill_id parameter. It only says 'this skill,' which adds little beyond the parameter name and does not clarify format, origin, or constraints.

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 and resource: it lists project maps that include the given skill. It also adds a useful boundary with 'Roles never appear,' but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like where_used.

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 phrase 'Roles never appear' implies a boundary and hints that this tool is not for role-related lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use or alternative recommendation. The usage context is only implied, not stated.

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