search_skills

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden but only states 'semantic search' without disclosing whether the operation is read-only, how results are ordered, whether it requires authentication, or what the response structure is. It does not mention any side effects or limitations.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the core function immediately. Every word contributes meaning.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It omits parameter behavior, scoping options, and return details, making it incomplete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 5 parameters and 0% schema-description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only explains 'natural-language query' for the query param, leaving limit, scope, agent_key, and min_trust entirely unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('skills'), and clarifies that it performs semantic, natural-language-based search, which distinguishes it from exact-match tools like get_skill and listing tools like list_global_skills.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as list_my_skills or get_skill, and does not mention exclusions or use cases. The verb 'search' implies one usage, but no contrasts or alternatives are named.

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