skill_consistency_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains two key behaviors: consistency check (without relying on external file) and drift detection (with mapDrift as warning). It also implicitly describes mode behavior (strict vs warn). However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or expected output format beyond the mode parameter note.

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 long, with the primary action front-loaded. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy. It efficiently covers the two main validation aspects and mode behavior.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should explain return values. It only hints at pass/fail in the mode parameter description but does not explicitly state output structure for either consistency check or drift detection. The tool is moderately complex with two checks and two modes, so more detail on output would be beneficial.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters. The mode parameter's behavior is partially reinforced in the description (mapDrift is warning), but no new semantic value is added.

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 states the tool's two functions: batch validation of skill tool consistency and drift detection. It specifies the scope (all open-source Skills) and key distinguishing detail (independent of external file). This verb+resource with specific scope makes it distinct from sibling tools like skill_validate or skill_tools_map.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use skill_validate or skill_mcp_validate). No context for when-not to use it or prerequisites are mentioned. The usage context is only implied by the tool's purpose.

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