skills_get_body

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses return fields, version fallback behavior, deprecation notices, and warns against speculative loading. It could explicitly state read-only nature, but the description implies it's a safe load operation.

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?

Well-structured with bullet points and clear sections, front-loading the purpose and step. Slightly verbose but every sentence adds value; could be slightly more concise.

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 presence of an output schema, the description explains the three return fields and their roles. It also covers versioning, deprecation, and when to use sibling tools, making the tool's context complete for an AI agent.

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 0%, but the description adds substantial meaning: explains skill_id as identifier, version parameter optional with default null, pinning via version or inline, and behavior when version not found. This goes well beyond the bare schema.

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 purpose: it is STEP 2 to load full skill instructions after identifying the best-matching skill_id via skills_find_relevant. The verb 'load' and resource 'skill instructions' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its step and usage context.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use the tool (after skills_find_relevant) and when not to (do not load Tier 3 speculatively). It provides version pinning details and references sibling tools for fetching referenced files, offering clear guidance on alternatives.

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