get_skill_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: a prerequisite ('Requires initialized project memory'), an explicit no-side-effect list, and failure semantics ('error when the selector is unresolved or ambiguous'). The only gap is that it doesn't discuss cost/latency or whether installation state is read live from the host, but for a read tool this is close to complete.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what it returns, then when to use it, then prerequisites and exclusions, then error behavior. No sentence restates the name or the annotations.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, everything an agent needs to call it correctly is present: prerequisite project state, the sibling that supplies valid selectors, what it does not do, and how failure surfaces.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly further by framing the argument as a 'selector' that may be unresolved or ambiguous, which tells the agent that non-exact names are accepted but can fail and should be resolved via list_skills first.

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?

Specific verb plus a concrete resource set: 'Read metadata, triggers, content references, and installation state for one registered skill.' The scope ('one registered skill') distinguishes it from list_skills and from mutating siblings like activate_skill or sync_skills.

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?

Explicit sequencing guidance ('Use after list_skills to inspect a relevant entry') plus named alternatives with their distinct roles: validate_skill for validation, recommend_skills for discovery. It also states negative scope ('Does not activate, generate, or synchronize skills'), closing off the most likely misselection.

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