Show the minimal authoring view of a skill — persona + connectors + handoff_when + style + policy guardrails only. ~10× smaller than ateam_get_solution(view:'skills') for the same skill. Use this when you only need the irreducible author content (Phase 9 of the strip).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skill_id | Yes | The skill ID | |
| solution_id | Yes | The solution ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits such as the limited content scope and the substantial size reduction (~10x smaller), which informs performance expectations. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only, but the verb 'Show' and the term 'view' strongly imply a non-mutating operation. This is useful but not exhaustive.
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 two sentences and front-loaded with the primary action and scope. It then provides a comparison and usage condition. Every sentence contributes value, with no redundancy or unnecessary filler.
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?
The description fully covers what the tool returns (specific authoring components), compares it to an alternative, and explains when to use it. With only two required ID parameters and no output schema, no additional context is needed for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters (solution_id and skill_id) are already documented. The description adds no extra semantic detail about the parameters, only mentioning them indirectly through 'skill' and 'solution'. Since the baseline for full schema coverage is 3, this is appropriate.
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 function: 'Show the minimal authoring view of a skill' with an explicit enumeration of included components (persona, connectors, handoff_when, style, policy guardrails). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'ateam_get_solution' by noting it is '~10× smaller', making the purpose specific and differentiated.
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 explicit guidance: 'Use this when you only need the irreducible author content (Phase 9 of the strip).' It also contrasts with ateam_get_solution(view:'skills') by size, effectively telling the agent when to choose this tool over that alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions that differentiate similar functions like chain polling vs. chain inspection. However, there is slight overlap between ateam_design_advisor, ateam_get_spec, and ateam_spec_search, which all serve design guidance, potentially causing confusion if descriptions are not read carefully.
The naming mostly follows a consistent verb_noun pattern with the 'ateam_' prefix (e.g., ateam_get_solution, ateam_create_connector, ateam_test_skill). Minor deviations include ateam_patch (missing object) and ateam_redeploy (verb only), but overall the pattern is predictable and clear.
With 47 tools, the count is high and exceeds the typical 15-tool threshold for a well-scoped set. However, the tools cover a broad and complex platform (auth, deployment, testing, GitHub integration, scaffolding), and each tool appears to have a distinct role, making the count borderline acceptable rather than excessive.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of building, deploying, testing, and managing A-Team solutions, including design, GitHub integration, and verification. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tool for deleting individual files (though patching can overwrite) and no standalone skill listing, but these are not critical dead ends for an agent.
