package_skill

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral traits. It discloses auto-upload behavior based on API key presence and format differences by platform, but omits important details like side effects (overwrite, error handling, directory structure requirements).

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 essential. First states the primary action and formats, second lists platforms, third mentions auto-upload. No redundant information; highly front-loaded.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks explanation of prerequisites (e.g., skill directory structure), error conditions, or output details. With 0% schema coverage and complex behavior (packaging + upload), more contextual information is needed for a complete understanding.

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%, so the description compensates partially. It explains 'target' via platform list and 'auto_upload' via auto-upload behavior, but 'skill_dir' receives no elaboration. The meaning is conveyed but not fully mapped to each parameter.

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 tool packages a skill directory into platform-specific formats (ZIP for most, tar.gz for Gemini) and lists supported platforms. It distinguishes from siblings like 'upload_skill' by combining packaging with optional auto-upload, making the purpose specific and actionable.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'upload_skill'. The description implies usage for packaging with optional upload, but does not state when not to use it or provide context for choosing among the 39 sibling tools.

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