syncky_skill

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description does add genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it runs offline and never fetches updates, which warns the agent that the result may be stale relative to upstream. It does not disclose the return shape, whether a missing/unverified skill errors, or which skill is selected.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler: the operation first, then the offline constraint. Nothing is wasted, though the compression is partly what creates the ambiguity around how `diff` selects the output.

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 one-boolean, read-only tool with a full annotation set and no output schema, this covers the essentials: what is read, the two output modes, and the offline/staleness caveat. The gaps (skill selection mechanism, error behavior when no verified skill exists) are modest given the tool's simplicity.

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 0% for the single `diff` boolean, so the description carries the burden, and it does communicate that the diff variant returns a 'literal previous-version diff'. That is meaningful, but it never states the toggle semantics explicitly (e.g., diff=true yields diff, diff=false yields content) or what 'literal' constrains, leaving the agent to infer.

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?

Specific verb 'Read' plus a scoped resource ('the bundled or verified installed skill, or its literal previous-version diff'), which clearly separates it from the mutating siblings (send, ack) and from inbox/status. It stops short of a 5 because 'skill' is ever-so-slightly jargon-dependent and it never names a sibling for contrast.

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?

'Works offline; no updates fetched' implicitly tells the agent this is safe/local inspection and implies the content may be pinned or stale rather than freshly fetched. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of how it relates to syncky_status (which presumably reports skill state), and no prerequisites stated.

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