ateam_show_skill_minimal

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It implies a read operation ('Show') and notes the reduced data volume (~10× smaller). However, it omits details on error conditions, authentication needs, or response format – acceptable for a simple read tool but leaves gaps.

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?

Two sentences deliver purpose, composition, size comparison, and usage guidance. Every word earns its place. No unnecessary elaboration.

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?

No output schema exists, so description should hint at return structure. It lists included components but not how they're presented (format, nesting). Given the tool's simplicity, it's adequate but not complete – missing output format and potential error responses.

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%, but param descriptions are minimal ('The solution ID', 'The skill ID'). The tool description adds no further semantics beyond naming the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the basic job, but no added value from description.

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 'Show' and resource 'minimal authoring view of a skill', listing specific components (persona, connectors, etc.). It contrasts with sibling ateam_get_solution, establishing distinct purpose.

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 explicitly advises 'Use this when you only need the irreducible author content (Phase 9 of the strip)' and provides a size comparison with ateam_get_solution. It could add explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, but the directive is clear.

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