trw_skill_discovery

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'without executing them' (safe, read-only) and 'Rank eligible' (a ranking operation), but doesn't explain 'eligible' criteria, side effects, or returned data shape.

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?

Two sentences—no redundancy, front-loaded with action, and straight to the point. Every word earns its place.

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?

5 parameters and no output schema. The description covers core purpose but omits details about return format (e.g., just rankings? scores?) and leaves 'eligible' undefined. Adequate but with notable gaps.

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% with adequate parameter descriptions (e.g., mode enum, query, active_cap). The tool description adds 'Rank eligible SKILL.md files' but doesn't enrich parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states 'Rank eligible SKILL.md files without executing them.' The verb 'Rank' and resource 'eligible SKILL.md files' are specific. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like trw_adopt_run, which likely executes.

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?

Explicitly advises 'Use when an agent needs safe skill recommendations from explicit SKILL.md paths before invoking any workflow.' This provides a clear context and purpose, though it could explicitly state when not to use it.

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