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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description simply says 'Get the Claude Code install command for a skill' and offers no detail on side effects, return format, error handling, or permissions. The behavior is as ambiguous as a generic getter.

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 a single, focused sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. There is no extraneous information or filler. It is optimally concise for the simple operation it describes.

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?

With no annotations or output schema, the description is the only context provided. It explains what the tool does but omits crucial details such as what the install command output looks like, whether the skill must already exist, or any usage constraints. The minimal description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and return value.

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?

The input schema already provides a complete description of the 'name' parameter with an example ('beginner-japanese'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the high coverage. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Get') on a specific resource ('the Claude Code install command for a skill'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_skill, which likely retrieves skill details rather than the install command. The verb and object are precise and non-tautological.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and one-line description. No contextual hints about prerequisites or situations are given.

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

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. 'Get full details' implies a safe read operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, what the response contains, or how errors are handled if the skill does not exist. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, focused sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words or repetition. It is effectively front-loaded and earns its place.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the purpose and parameter. It does not explicitly enumerate what 'full details' includes, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema already fully documents the single 'name' parameter with an example ('beginner-japanese'), and the description's 'by name' adds no new semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the description appropriately relies on the schema for parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource ('full details for a single skill') and the access method ('by name'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_skills and search_skills, which focus on listing or searching rather than retrieving a single skill's details.

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 clearly implies the tool is for when you need full details of a known skill by its exact name. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like search_skills or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions but provides sufficient context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It clearly states that the tool lists all unique categories and includes counts, which implies a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it does not mention ordering, pagination, or any potential limitations, though these are likely not relevant for such a simple tool.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It contains no filler and every word contributes meaning, earning a perfect score.

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 no parameters and no output schema, this description is complete. It conveys the tool's purpose, the nature of its output (unique categories with counts), and implies its read-only behavior. There is no missing information that would prevent an agent from using it correctly.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is effectively 100%. According to the guideline, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when no parameters exist, as there is no parameter information for the description to add beyond the 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 verb 'List', the resource 'unique skill categories', and the scope 'all' with the additional detail of 'skill counts'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_skills, which list skills rather than categories.

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 implies usage: when you need to see skill categories and their counts, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_skills or search_skills, leaving the decision to the agent's inference from sibling names.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates the operation is a read-only list, but does not disclose potential behaviors such as network dependency, pagination, or response format. The source ('from the Loooom marketplace') adds some context, but the description is otherwise minimal.

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 a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action ('List all') and the object, making it immediately parseable.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description adequately states its purpose. Some might expect a note about the return format, but for a list-all tool the phrase 'available skills/plugins' sufficiently implies a list of those items.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain any parameters, and the empty input schema is fully consistent. No additional parameter info is required.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'all available skills/plugins from the Loooom marketplace'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_skills (which searches) and get_skill (which retrieves a single item).

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 phrase 'all available' provides clear context that this tool is for obtaining the complete catalog, implicitly differentiating it from the more selective search_skills. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid using it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses how matching works (against name, description, keywords) and the category filter, which is useful. However, it does not mention result pagination, limits, case sensitivity, or whether the search is fuzzy/exact, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It states the primary action, the matching criteria, and the optional filter in a compact and scannable way.

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 relatively simple search tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core functionality (search by query, optional category filter). It could provide more context on return format or when to use over sibling tools, but given the low complexity, it is reasonably complete.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (query and category), and the description largely repeats that information. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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's action: 'Search skills by query string', and specifies the search scope (matches name, description, keywords) and an optional category filter. This distinctively separates it from siblings like list_skills (list all) and get_skill (retrieve specific).

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool (search by query, optionally filtered by category), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools. No 'use X instead' guidance is provided, but the context is sufficient for basic selection.

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