get_skill

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description (saying 'Read') aligns with. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations, such as clarifying it's a 'reusable skill', but doesn't disclose additional traits like authorization needs or behavior on missing ID.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every word ('Read', 'reusable skill', 'by ID') is essential and clear. It is appropriately minimal for a simple tool.

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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which documents return structure), the description is sufficient. It covers the core purpose and input. It could mention error handling or success behavior, but for a basic read operation, it 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only says 'by ID'. It does not explain the format, source, or constraints of the skill_id parameter. The schema's title 'Skill Id' provides some hint, but the description adds no meaningful semantic beyond stating the obvious.

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 action (Read) and the resource (reusable skill by ID). It distinguishes from siblings like search_skills (search vs. get by ID) and add_skill (add vs. get). The verb-resource pairing is specific and unambiguous.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for reading a skill by its ID, implying use when the ID is known. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like search_skills for finding skills by other criteria, nor does it state when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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