keystone_new_skill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the naming convention (prepending 'keystone-') and explains the skill discovery mechanism. However, it omits critical behaviors such as what happens when the target directory exists, the effect of the 'force' parameter, or whether any files are overwritten. This leaves meaningful gaps for a scaffolding tool.

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 composed of three short paragraphs, each adding relevant information: the action, the context/ecosystem, and the naming behavior. It is efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose, though the second paragraph could be seen as slightly verbose for a tool description. Overall, well-structured and without redundancy.

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?

The description gives a strong conceptual foundation (what a skill is, how it is surfaced) and the naming rule, but it falls short on parameter semantics and doesn't explain the behavior of the 'force' flag or the expected output. Since an output schema exists, return values are less critical, but the missing parameter details leave the description incomplete for a 3-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.

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 must compensate. It provides useful context for the 'name' parameter by showing it in the target path and explaining the prefix rule. But it says nothing about the 'force' or 'description' parameters, leaving the agent to guess their roles. This is insufficient given the lack of schema-level descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Scaffold') and a concrete resource ('.keystone/harness/skills/<name>/SKILL.md'), making the tool's function unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes itself from the many sibling 'new_*' tools by naming the skill-specific directory and file structure, ensuring an agent knows this is the skill scaffolder.

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 explains that skills are for 'agent-discoverable procedural how-to' and that the scaffolder handles naming conventions, which implies when to use this tool. It lacks explicit exclusions or direct comparisons to alternatives like keystone_new_guide or keystone_new_prompt, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the primary use case.

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