find_existing_skill_terms

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Find... to check what terms already exist' discloses the core read-only, existence-checking behavior, which is the most important trait. It does not describe return semantics, whether the optional search is partial or fuzzy, or how results are presented, but the essential non-mutating character is clear.

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 runs to three sentences, but the third ('helps you find existing skill combinations or check if a specific responsibility-tool pair already has terms') restates the first sentence with near-identical meaning. The useful content — what it finds and when to use it — is front-loaded, but the redundancy makes it padded.

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 simple lookup with 100% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the main decision points: what it filters on (responsibility and tool) and when to use it (before adding terms). It leaves unspecified the no-match behavior and the distinction from find_existing_responsibility_terms, but nothing critical blocks correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the relational framing that responsibility_id and tool_id form a pair to be checked together, which is marginally useful for constructing a query. No new parameter-level details are provided beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Find existing Skills by responsibility and tool.' The purpose — checking what terms already exist before adding new ones — is explicit and goes beyond the tool name. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the near-sibling find_existing_responsibility_terms, which appears to serve the same role for a different term type.

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?

'Use this BEFORE adding new terms to skills' provides an explicit temporal trigger that tells the agent when to invoke this tool. This clearly routes the agent to call it ahead of create_term or create. It does not name specific alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the timing guidance is unambiguous and actionable.

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