Get OpenConstruction skill

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

There are no annotations, and the description provides minimal behavioral information. It implies a read-only operation by using 'get', but does not specify what is returned, potential errors, or any side effects. The description carries the full burden and fails to disclose anything beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence with no superfluous words. It is well-structured and front-loads the action and resource.

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 description is minimal but sufficient for a simple get-by-id operation. It does not explain what a skill definition contains or how it relates to sibling tools, but given the straightforward nature of the operation and the presence of a list_skills sibling, the context is reasonably inferable. However, it lacks details about output or error handling.

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 only parameter 'id' is described as 'by id' in the description, but this adds little beyond the schema's type and required flag. It does not explain what constitutes a valid id, its format, or any constraints. Given the schema provides no parameter description, the description should compensate but does not.

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 tool's function: to retrieve a single OpenConstruction skill definition by its id. This is unambiguous and distinct from the sibling 'list_skills' which presumably retrieves multiple skills.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that one should know the id beforehand or that list_skills should be used to discover ids. Users must infer usage from the verb 'get'.

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