Code Whisperer MCP

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 the tool fetches 'full SKILL.md content' and requires a slug, but doesn't mention authentication needs (api_key parameter), error handling, rate limits, or response format. While it adds some context about the content type, key behavioral aspects remain undocumented.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose and resource, the second provides essential usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the core function and efficiently includes only necessary context about sibling tools.

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 read operation with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and sibling differentiation well. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on authentication (api_key), error cases, or return format, leaving gaps in behavioral context despite the straightforward function.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (slug and api_key) with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying slug usage, which the schema already covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Get the full SKILL.md content') and resource ('for a specific Claude Code skill by slug'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_skills (which discovers slugs) and other get_/list_ tools for different resources. It specifies the exact content format (SKILL.md) and mechanism (slug-based lookup).

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('by slug') and provides a clear alternative for discovering slugs ('Use list_skills to discover available slugs'), directly addressing sibling differentiation. This gives complete guidance on the workflow: first use list_skills, then use get_skill with a slug from that list.

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