get_skill

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true; the description adds value by explaining the returned object (structured recipe with instructions, tool calls, data gathering, presentation format) and advising flexible adaptation. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 compact and front-loaded with purpose, then explains content, usage adaptation, and the key parameter. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.

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 simple read-only nature, the description covers the core behavior, return value concept, and primary parameter. The unexplained 'config' parameter and lack of explicit sibling differentiation prevent a perfect score, but overall it is sufficiently 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?

The description includes a detailed Args section for skill_id with meaningful examples, which is necessary since schema description coverage is 0%. However, the 'config' parameter is omitted entirely, leaving it undocumented. The description partially compensates but is incomplete.

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 'Load a specific workflow skill recipe' with a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes from siblings by describing the recipe content (step-by-step instructions, tools to call, data to gather, presentation). This leaves no ambiguity vs list_skills or read_skill_file.

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 gives usage context ('Use this as a guide, not a rigid script — adapt steps') but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_skills or read_skill_file. When to use it is implied from the name and description, but no exclusions are stated.

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