skill_tools_map

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

无 annotations，描述补充了数据源（handlers/skill_map.js）和交叉校验（与 prompts.js），但未明确说明查询是只读操作，也未提及其他行为特性（如错误处理、权限）。

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?

仅两句话，第一句总述目的和方法，第二句说明数据源和校验。无冗余，信息密度高。

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?

缺少输出格式说明（如返回列表还是对象），尽管 schema 描述 includeDetails，但无 output schema 的情况下，描述未提供足够信息让 agent 完全理解返回结构。

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?

input schema 已覆盖 100% 参数描述，描述未对 includeDetails 参数额外解释，但 schema 说明已足够。描述仅重复了 skillName 和 toolName 的主要用途，未增加实质额外语义。

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?

明确使用动词 '查询' 描述双向映射功能，并具体列出 skillName 和 toolName 两种入口。与 sibling 工具（如 skill_validate、skill_consistency_check）有清晰区分。

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?

指明了两种典型使用场景：传入 skillName 返回工具链，传入 toolName 返回引用它的所有 Skill。但未提到何时不适合使用或与其他工具的比较。

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