get_skill

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses authentication needs ('Requires a valid API key') and return content ('curated context package', 'auditable provenance'), which adds value. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or response format, leaving behavioral gaps for a tool with authentication requirements.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by key details. The Args section is structured but slightly verbose; overall, most sentences earn their place, though minor trimming could improve conciseness.

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 complexity (authentication required, 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and prerequisites, but lacks behavioral details like error cases or output specifics. The output schema mitigates some gaps, but more context would help, scoring 4.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for both parameters: skill_name is explained as 'The skill ID (use list_skills to see options)', and api_key as 'Your API key from register()'. This clarifies usage beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail formats or constraints, warranting a 4.

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 'retrieve' and resource 'expert skill file', and explains it returns a 'curated context package' for task improvement. It distinguishes from list_skills by specifying retrieval vs. listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other siblings like check_usage or buy_credits, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 provides clear context: 'use list_skills to see options' for skill_name, and 'Requires a valid API key' with reference to register() for api_key. It implicitly suggests using list_skills first, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives like agent_health_check, so it scores 4.

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