uno_skills_fetch

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly succeeds: it details the returned fields and adds a useful operational hint that executable-script skills can be retrieved as a full ZIP via download_url. It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or confirm the read-only nature explicitly, leaving a minor gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and usage order, then a scannable bulleted breakdown of return fields plus one actionable download note. No filler sentences, though the bullet list is slightly more verbose than strictly necessary.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description appropriately compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and the single parameter is fully covered by the schema. It is complete for invocation, with only peripheral gaps (auth, limits) that a fetch tool ideally would mention.

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 100% for the single skill_ids parameter, including the maxItems=10 constraint and the note that IDs come from uno_skills_search results, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's only addition is the implicit 'batch' framing, which the schema already conveys via the array type.

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+resource: batch-fetching full content of skills, with an explicit distinction from the uno_skills_search sibling that only searches. It also enumerates exactly what 'full content' means (skill_md, files, download_url, repo_url), so an agent knows the payload shape before opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly names the predecessor workflow ('通常在 uno_skills_search 后使用'), routing the agent to search first and fetch second. It does not state when-not to use it or address precedence relative to other data-returning siblings, so it falls short of a full 5.

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