get_skill

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing return format, error behavior, authentication needs, or side effects. While 'get' implies a read-only operation, the lack of any additional context leaves significant gaps.

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 short sentence, making it highly concise and front-loaded with the essential message. It avoids unnecessary words, though it is perhaps under-specified for a tool with no annotations or output schema.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not mention what the returned details look like or how errors are handled. Given the presence of sibling tools like list_skills and attach_skill_to_agent, the description lacks contextual links that would help the agent understand the tool's role and expected outputs.

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 covers workspace_id with a description but leaves the required id undocumented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, and with 50% schema coverage, it should compensate for at least the id parameter's semantics. It does not, so the agent must infer that 'id' refers to a skill identifier.

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 'Get one skill's details' clearly states the verb 'get' and the resource 'skill', making the core function unambiguous. The singular form implicitly distinguishes it from list_skills, though it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of a top score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_skills, create_skill, or update_skill. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent without decision-support information.

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