get_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 mentions retrieving 'full details' including specific components, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., what happens if the slug doesn't exist), authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. This leaves gaps for an agent to understand operational nuances.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key details retrieved. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage context.

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 moderate complexity (retrieving detailed skill info), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies what details are included, but lacks information on return values, error cases, or behavioral constraints, leaving the agent with incomplete context for reliable invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'slug' parameter well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the slug identifies a 'specific skill', which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'full details for a specific skill', specifying what information is retrieved (SKILL.md content, security info, metadata). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_skills' (searching multiple) and 'install_skill' (installing), though not explicitly. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'get_trending' which might also retrieve skill details, keeping it at 4.

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 implies usage when you need detailed information for a specific skill, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_skills' for broader queries or 'get_trending' for trending skills. It lacks exclusions or prerequisites, relying on context from the tool name and parameters.

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