instinct

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by explaining key behaviors: it describes the output format (YAML frontmatter plus grouped rules), mentions compatibility with the anthropics/skills standard, and notes the return structure including error handling ('empty string if no rules yet' and 'hint explaining the >=10 threshold'). It doesn't cover all possible behavioral aspects like performance or side effects, but provides substantial context.

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 efficiently structured with purpose first, usage guidelines second, parameter explanations third, and return details last. Every sentence adds value with zero waste, and it's appropriately sized for a tool with three parameters and specific output format requirements.

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 the tool's complexity (format conversion with filtering), no annotations, and an output schema that exists, the description provides excellent completeness. It explains the transformation purpose, distinguishes from alternatives, documents all parameters thoroughly, and describes the return structure including error cases. The output schema handles return values, so the description appropriately focuses on other aspects.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters in detail: 'name' becomes the Skill's identifier with default, 'description' is for frontmatter with auto-generation behavior, and 'category' filters rules by type with empty string meaning all categories. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Package rule-level patterns as a SKILL.md file') and resource ('Anthropic Agent Skill format'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like export_claude_md and export_platform by specifying the exact output format. It provides a concrete purpose beyond just the tool name.

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 states when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'For raw CLAUDE.md output instead of the Skill format, use export_claude_md(). For other editors (.cursorrules etc.), use export_platform().' This provides clear guidance on tool selection among siblings.

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