get_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. It adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing that the response includes 'full instructions and executable steps,' setting expectations about the return content. While it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, the verb 'get' and the nature of the tool make this 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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no unnecessary words. Every part adds value.

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 1-parameter get operation, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and return content, especially since there is no output schema. It lacks only minor details about error handling or how to obtain the skill_id, but these are not critical for a straightforward 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 has 100% parameter description coverage for skill_id ('The ID of the skill to retrieve'), which is straightforward. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond confirming the retrieval, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific skill'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_skills, which implies searching across multiple skills. It also specifies the scope ('specific skill') and content ('full instructions and executable steps').

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 a specific skill_id is known, but it does not explicitly contrast with search_skills or state when not to use this tool. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so the usage guidance is only implicit.

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