Get detailed info for a specific skill including description, supported platforms, version history, author, and security vetting status. / 특정 스킬의 상세 정보 조회.
Args:
skill_id: 스킬 ID (search_skills 결과의 skill_id)
Returns:
스킬 상세 정보 JSON 문자열
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skill_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns a JSON string and lists the types of information included (description, platforms, version history, author, vetting status). This gives agents a good sense of what to expect, though it doesn't cover error cases or authentication requirements.
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 concise: a two-sentence purpose statement followed by minimal Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the core function and every sentence adds value, including the Korean translation for multilingual support.
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 covers the tool's purpose, parameter source, and return format. Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present) this is nearly complete, though it could explicitly differentiate from overlapping siblings like get_skill_schema or get_vetting_result for full context.
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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining that skill_id comes from search_skills results. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's simple 'Skill Id' label, helping the agent know how to obtain the correct value.
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 begins with 'Get detailed info for a specific skill' and enumerates specific content fields (description, supported platforms, version history, author, and security vetting status). This clearly identifies the tool's action and scope, distinguishing it from siblings like get_skill_schema or get_vetting_result.
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 Args section states 'skill_id: 스킬 ID (search_skills 결과의 skill_id)', indicating that the skill_id should be obtained from search_skills results. This gives practical usage context, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.
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 distinct purposes, but check_vetting_status and get_vetting_result both deal with security vetting and could be confused. Similarly, get_agent_author_stats and get_agent_identity_stats overlap somewhat, though descriptions differentiate them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., search_skills, upload_skill_draft, get_vetting_result). No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
18 tools is slightly above the typical well-scoped range (3-15), but the coverage of a skill marketplace (search, browse, upload, vet, review, stats, install) justifies the count. It doesn't feel bloated.
Core workflows are covered: search, download, upload, review, and status checks. However, there is no tool to update or delete an uploaded skill, and no way to list skills uploaded by a particular author, which are notable gaps for a marketplace.