skill_validate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the three modes and parameter conditions but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is destructive, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. For a validation/query tool, it likely is read-only, but that is not stated.

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 a single paragraph that efficiently conveys purpose, merge history, and mode behavior. It front-loads the core function and uses enumeration. While it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points), it is not verbose and every sentence adds value.

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 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers input semantics and mode conditions. However, it does not describe the tool's return value or output format, which is important for an agent to understand what to expect after invocation. This gap reduces completeness.

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 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of each mode in relation to parameters (e.g., mode=consistency for batch, mode=mcp_validate requires skillName). It clarifies the interplay between mode and parameter requirements, which the schema alone only hints at.

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 the tool performs 'Skill与MCP工具一致性校验与映射查询' and enumerates three distinct modes (consistency, mcp_validate, tools_map), each with a clear verb+resource. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly noting it merged the older separate tools (skill_consistency_check, skill_mcp_validate, skill_tools_map) as of v1.9.5.

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 when to use each mode (batch vs single validation vs mapping) and lists required parameters per mode. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools (e.g., the deprecated sibling tools). The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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