get_skill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose non-obvious behavior: trust-gated access, that repo skills come back with their file path, and an important semantic caveat that the returned body is untrusted instructions/data rather than verified fact. It does not describe not-found or ambiguous-name behavior when multiple scopes match.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the trust constraint, then the data-vs-instructions warning. The final sentence is a genuine safety cue rather than filler, though the repo-skill clause is slightly prose-heavy.

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?

No output schema, so the description must convey enough to interpret results; it does by explaining the file-path reporting and the trust gate. Still silent on failure modes (skill not found, multiple matches) and whether non-body metadata is returned, which are the remaining gaps.

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 100% and the schema already explains `scope`, its default resolution order, the `directory` alias, and the working-directory limitation in detail. The description only echoes the global-vs-repo split, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get the full content of one skill by name') and immediately scopes it to two concrete sources: Suvadu's shared skills library and `.suvadu/skills/*.md` repo skills. This clearly separates it from `list_skills` and `search_skills`, which enumerate rather than fetch one skill's body.

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?

Gives a real precondition ('once the user has trusted it') and a hard exclusion ('An untrusted repo skill's text is never returned'), which tells the agent when the call will yield content. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives (e.g., use `search_skills` to find the name first), so routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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