sumo_qa_search_external_skills

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: it pins one exact Skills CLI version, returns ANSI-stripped verbatim output, and includes a hint field for reading it. It also explains the deliberate choice not to parse structured output so format drift doesn't break the flow. Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld, so this is valuable additional disclosure about the return shape and version discipline.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by two short supporting paragraphs that each carry distinct information (version pinning, output shape). No filler, though the final sentence about format drift is slightly editorializing.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description appropriately describes what comes back (identity, verbatim CLI output, hint). It covers the critical behavioral facts an agent needs to call and interpret this tool. The main gap is lack of explicit routing versus the install/execute/check siblings.

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 'query' parameter has no description anywhere. The description implies it's a search query over the registry but adds no syntax, matching behavior, or scope details. Baseline for one param is limited; addition here is modest.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (Skills CLI registry for external agent skills). Sibling tools exist for checking installation and executing skills, but the description doesn't explicitly name them or distinguish this search step from those. Still, the resource is unambiguous enough for an agent to identify the discovery step.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'search the registry' framing and the mention that raw output is meant to be interpreted by the host LLM. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs the siblings (check_external_skill_installed, install_external_skill, execute_external_skill, suggesting_external_skill). The workflow position is inferable but not stated.

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