browse_radar_skills

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral distinction between browsing/filtering and opening one Skill by ID, but it does not describe pagination, filtering semantics, or any side effects beyond what annotations cover.

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 one compact sentence, front-loads the primary action, and uses the 'or' construction to expose the second mode without redundancy.

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?

For a tool with 11 loosely documented parameters and no usage guidance, the description is too thin. The output schema and annotations reduce the burden for return values and safety, but an agent still cannot reliably know how to form filtering/query parameters or choose between this and sibling tools.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage across 11 parameters. The description only provides high-level meaning: some parameters act as filters and skill_id opens a single Skill. It does not explain query, category, license, sort, limit, offset, locale, installable, kind, or request_id, leaving the agent to guess their semantics.

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 states a specific action ('Browse/filter the Radar Skills library') and a distinct alternative mode ('open one Skill by ID'). This clearly identifies the resource and scope and differentiates it from project-focused siblings such as browse_radar_projects.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings like search_ai_projects or browse_radar_projects. The description implies a skills-library context but does not state exclusions or the conditions that should route an agent to an alternative.

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