retrieve_skill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and 'matching by semantic similarity,' which are critical for an agent to know the operation has no side effects and how matching works. It does not explain return format or error behavior, but the disclosed traits are essential and clear.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no redundant phrases. Each clause contributes value: the action, the matching mechanism, the read-only safety, and the usage context.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify what the return value looks like. It says 'skills' but does not state whether a list is returned, relevance scoring, or any result structure. While usage and purpose are well covered, this gap lowers completeness for a retrieval 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?

The input schema provides thorough descriptions for all three parameters (query, limit, scope), covering semantics, defaults, and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the tool's function: 'Retrieve executable skills matching a task description by semantic similarity.' This is a specific verb+resource+mechanism that distinguishes it from siblings like search_memory (knowledge recall) and store_skill (storing procedures). The phrase 'executable skills' and 'not just recall knowledge' further set it apart.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use when you need a stored procedure to act on, not just recall knowledge.' This tells the agent when to use this tool and differentiates it from knowledge retrieval, though it does not name an alternative tool explicitly. It implies the alternative but lacks a direct sibling reference.

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