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 discloses that the tool is free with no key/credits required and that content-nss-optimize involves iterative scoring toward NSS 70/80 with a returned editor link, which is real behavioral context. It still omits whether results are cached, the response shape, or any auth nuances beyond the free-tool note.

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 core purpose leads, followed by the skill list and the special 'list' value; most sentences earn their place. The multi-line enumeration of skill names is a bit sprawling but is genuinely informative rather than filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description covers the parameter's valid domain and the free-tool constraint. It is largely complete for a single-parameter retrieval tool, with only light gaps around how skills differ from sibling guidance endpoints.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single 'name' parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate. It does so well by enumerating the valid skill names and documenting the name='list' sentinel value, giving the agent enough to populate the parameter correctly.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieves an SEO workflow skill containing methodology and CTR models. It enumerates the skill names it can return, so an agent can tell what content comes back. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like seo_guidance or seo_checklist, keeping it out of the top band.

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 says to use name='list' to enumerate all skills and flags it as a free tool needing no API key, which is useful invocation context. It does not say when to prefer this over sibling guidance tools like seo_guidance or seo_workflow, so usage is only implied.

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