fetch_skillsmp_skill

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the primary behavior (fetching full markdown content) but does not mention read-only nature, error handling, authentication, or rate limits. For a fetch operation, some additional context (e.g., no side effects, potential invalid URL behavior) would improve transparency, but the core behavior is adequately stated.

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 two concise sentences with a clear main purpose and an Args section that adds necessary context. No extraneous wording; it is front-loaded with the primary action and directly addresses the single parameter.

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?

With one parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema present, the description covers the essential usage: it explains what the tool does and what input it needs. It does not mention potential errors or prerequisites beyond the implicit need to have searched first, but given the simplicity, the description is nearly complete.

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 compensates by explaining the githubUrl parameter: 'The githubUrl of the skill returned from search_skillsmp.' This adds meaning beyond the bare schema (type string) and clarifies the parameter's origin and expected value, though it does not specify format or validation details.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetches'), resource ('SKILL.md markdown content'), and input ('using its githubUrl returned from search'). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling search_skillsmp by indicating this is the follow-up fetch step, so an agent can readily identify its purpose.

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 explicitly ties usage to search results ('githubUrl returned from search_skillsmp'), implying it should be used after a search. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the complementary relationship with the sibling is clear. This is sufficient guidance for a simple two-tool workflow.

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