skill_get

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

Because there are no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the shape of the returned package and hints at a progressive-disclosure stage, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, possible side effects, output truncation, or failure modes; the verb implies retrieval but the behavioral story is incomplete.

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 primary action and immediately enumerates the package components. Every item adds information, and there's no wasted prose.

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 two optional undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description should explain how to choose the skill, how the response is shaped, and what the 'progressive disclosure' stage means in practice. The description lists contents, but it leaves the invocation context and return semantics incomplete.

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 schema has two parameters, key and name, but zero description coverage for both, and the description says nothing about how these parameters identify the skill or whether one, both, or either is required. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the agent without enough meaning to select parameters confidently.

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 ('获取') and names the resource ('skill 的完整包') with a clear list of package contents: manifest, SKILL.md body, file list, and resolved dependencies. It is clear and useful, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the sibling tools such as skill_inspect or skill_search.

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 no guidance on when to use skill_get versus the other related tools (skill_inspect, skill_search, skill_run, etc.) and no mention of prerequisites or a step in a progressive disclosure flow beyond the parenthetical. There is no 'when to use this, when to use that' direction.

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