get_skill

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'Get full details' which is read-only by implication, but it does not state this explicitly, nor does it mention any potential errors, permissions, or what 'full details' entails. It offers no behavioral insight beyond what the tool name and schema already convey.

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: 'Get full details of a skill.' It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no filler, and every word contributes to clarity.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves ambiguity. It says 'full details' but does not specify what those details are, nor does it describe the response shape. Given the lack of an output schema, more detail would be helpful for a complete understanding.

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 description coverage is 100% (skillId is described as 'Skill ID'). The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. This meets the baseline for schema-heavy parameter documentation.

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 purpose: to get full details of a skill. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('skill'), which makes the core action unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tool get_skill_content, which could be seen as overlapping.

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 usage: when you need full details of a skill identified by an ID. It does not explicitly state when to use this over list_skills or search_skills, nor does it mention alternatives or when not to use it. Usage guidance is implied but not explicit.

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