Dict Skills

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuine behavioral trait beyond the schema: batching up to 50 values per request. It does not state the return shape, whether unknown ids error or are silently dropped, or whether the lookup is read-only (implied but never said).

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 sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the id-discovery pointer trailing. Nothing extraneous and nothing buried.

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 single-param dictionary lookup this covers the essentials, but with no annotations and no output schema the description is the only source of return-value information and stays silent on it. An agent knows how to send ids but not what comes back or how failures surface.

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% and the single param is a bare string, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning by revealing that one string can carry several ids and caps it at 50, but it never says how multiple values are delimited, leaving the agent to guess the exact format.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Get key skills by id") and pins it against the sibling suggest_skill_set by assigning discovery to that tool. It falls short of 5 only because "key skills" is never defined, though the surrounding dict_* siblings make the dictionary-lookup intent inferable.

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?

It explicitly names the alternative workflow: obtain ids via suggest_skill_set, then call this tool to resolve them. That is a clear when-and-how pointer, but there is no exclusion guidance for other dict_* tools or for what to do when an id is unknown.

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