Duplicate skills

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It explains the comparison mechanism (content hash), the outcome categories (identical vs. differing copies), and the recommended actions (safe to remove vs. flagged for review). This gives the agent a complete understanding of the tool's behavior and side effects.

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-loaded with the definition of what the tool handles, followed by crucial behavioral details. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy exists.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the core behavior and implications. It explains the duplication source, cost impact, comparison method, and recommended actions. A brief mention of the return format (e.g., a list) would make it fully complete, but the description already provides sufficient context for correct use.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description correctly focuses on behavior rather than input.

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 defines the tool's scope: 'Skills whose name appears more than once' identifies the resource and intent. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing specifically on duplicate skills, not budget, costs, memory, or servers. The lack of an explicit verb (e.g., 'list' or 'report') prevents a 5.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to identify duplicate skills that incur full description cost. It explains the safety implications of removal ('identical copies are safe to remove') and when review is needed, giving the agent actionable guidance. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives, but sibling tools are topically distinct.

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