skill

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 useful behavior (returns instructions and files 'to follow now', nothing to install, sourced from Commons), but says nothing about authentication despite an api_key parameter, nor about rate limits or mutability of the fetched content.

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?

A single tight paragraph that front-loads the primary use case before branching to the query and fallback modes. The parenthetical framing is dense but each clause carries routing or behavioral information, with little waste.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description does explain the return shape (instructions + files) well, but leaves the auth parameter and the 'agent' parameter unaddressed. Adequate for the main path but incomplete for anything requiring credentials.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and only partially does: it covers 'name', 'query', and implies 'include_files' via '(and its files)'. The 'agent' and 'api_key' parameters are entirely unexplained in both schema and description, leaving auth requirements undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it fetches a skill's full instructions and files, with an explicit mention that the query form finds skills. It differentiates itself from skill_help by category. However, the presence of an undocumented 'agent' parameter leaves a possible third mode of operation unclear, slightly muddying the 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?

Explicitly routes between the two call signatures (skill(name) to run, skill(query=...) to find) and names the fallback skill_help with the condition that selects it ('Can't run it... a tool, access or environment you lack'). It lacks any exclusion guidance relative to the broader retrieval siblings like search or expand.

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