yaaif_skill_validate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It never states whether validation is read-only, whether it has side effects such as triggering recompilation or writing logs, or what happens on failure (errors, exit codes, output format). Read-only status is only an inference from the name, not a stated guarantee.

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?

At six words, the description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. For a tool with two undocumented parameters, an ambiguous core verb, and a look-alike sibling, far more detail is needed; brevity here sacrifices essential 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?

The definition is inadequate for the tool's complexity. With no annotations, no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and a sibling named 'yaaif_skill_validate_module', an agent lacks everything needed to call this reliably: what validation entails, what 'strict' does, the expected 'skill_id' format, the return value, and the distinguishing scenario.

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 0% — neither 'strict' nor 'skill_id' is documented in the schema — and the description says nothing about them either. An agent cannot determine what 'strict' controls, what format 'skill_id' must take, or whether both can be supplied together. The description fails to compensate for the schema's total lack of documentation.

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 names a verb (validate) and a resource (skill or catalog), and states the two possible scopes. However, 'validate' is ambiguous — it could mean syntax checking, dependency resolution, or runtime readiness — and the sibling 'yaaif_skill_validate_module' suggests a closely related but distinct operation that the description does not differentiate.

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?

No guidance is given on when to call this tool versus the near-identical 'yaaif_skill_validate_module', nor when to validate one skill (with skill_id) versus the whole catalog (omitting it). The 'strict' flag's role in choosing between modes is not explained either.

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