wwa_skills_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The word 'Search' implies a read-only operation, and the description adds context about the nature of skills ('exact commands, known pitfalls, verification steps'), but it does not disclose details like result format, pagination, or rate limits. It is not misleading, but it offers only minimal behavioral transparency.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action, the second describes the content domain, and the third gives usage guidance. The description is front-loaded and free of redundant information.

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 a simple search tool with well-documented parameters, the description adequately covers what the tool does, the nature of the data, and when to use it. The lack of an output schema means return structure is not described, but the domain context ('skill library', 'procedures') gives the agent a reasonable expectation of results.

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?

All three parameters (query, limit, category) have explicit schema descriptions with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score stands.

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 opens with 'Search the agent skill library for reusable workflows' – a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes this from sibling search tools like wwa_bid_search or wwa_blueprint_search. It further clarifies that skills are 'battle-tested procedures', establishing a unique scope.

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 explicitly advises 'Before tackling a new task, search here – the procedure might already exist', giving clear usage context. However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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