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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return scope (full content including instructions), which adds useful context. However, it does not mention side effects (likely none), permissions, or error behavior. For a read-only getter, the description is adequate but 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?

One sentence, 13 words, concise and front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundant information.

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 output schema exists, return values need no description. The tool is simple with one parameter, and the description covers the main purpose and the notable detail about including instructions. It lacks error-handling details, but for a simple retrieval tool it is sufficiently 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?

There is one parameter (name), and the schema provides only type/title with no description. The tool description does not mention the parameter or how it is used. With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate, but it fails to explain that the skill is identified by its name or any naming conventions.

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 identifies retrieval of a single skill's full content, distinguishing it from list_skills (which would list all skills) and other skill operations. It specifies the verb (get), resource (skill), and the scope (full content including instructions).

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 usage context is clear: use when you need the complete content of a specific skill. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the distinction from list_skills is implied. A more explicit note about using list_skills for browsing would improve it, but it is not necessary for this simple getter.

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