Get the full schema for invoking a skill - interface spec, input/output schemas, permissions, and capability tags. / 스킬 호출용 전체 스키마 조회.
인터페이스, 입출력 스키마, 권한, 능력 태그 등을 반환합니다.
Args:
skill_id: 스킬 ID
Returns:
스킬 호출 스키마 정보
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the type of information returned (interface spec, I/O schemas, permissions, tags) but does not mention side effects, auth requirements, or that it is a read-only operation. This is acceptable for a simple retrieval tool but could be more explicit.
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 compact and structured with a summary, Args, and Returns sections. The bilingual English-Korean text adds some redundancy but remains readable and every sentence contributes useful 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?
With only one parameter and an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. It states the purpose and the kind of schema returned. It could mention that skill_id is required, but the input schema already declares that. Overall sufficient for a simple tool.
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 must compensate for the parameter meaning. However, it only says 'skill_id: 스킬 ID' (skill ID), which adds no detail beyond the parameter name and title. It does not explain what a skill ID is or how to find it.
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 purpose: 'Get the full schema for invoking a skill - interface spec, input/output schemas, permissions, and capability tags.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and differentiates this from sibling tools like get_skill by focusing on the invocation schema.
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 when to use this tool (to obtain a skill's invocation schema) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Sibling tools like get_skill exist, but no contrast or selection guidance is provided.
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.