github_skills_get_skill

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

Annotations already declare the tool as readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint true, and openWorldHint true, covering safety. The description adds context about fetching 'key files' from a 'skill directory', but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as authentication or rate limits.

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 concise sentence that conveys the core action without any superfluous words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, output schema present), the description is largely adequate. However, it could be improved by hinting at the typical use case (e.g., after searching skills) or defining 'key files'. The lack of such context slightly reduces completeness.

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 description provides zero information about the parameters or their usage; it neither repeats nor elaborates on the schema's detailed property descriptions. Since schema description coverage is 0% (the description does not address parameters), the agent must rely solely on the schema, missing any high-level guidance on parameter selection.

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 verb ('Fetch'), resource ('key files for a specific skill directory'), and source ('from GitHub'), making the purpose unambiguous. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools (install, list repos, search, suggest scaffold) which have different functions.

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 explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions. Usage is implied by the name and description, but no guidance is given on sequencing (e.g., after searching) or scenarios to avoid.

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