archicad_get_skill

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only the enumeration of skill names; it says nothing about the form or size of the returned method, whether unknown names error or fall back to a default, or how the default "archibridge" is applied.

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 terse, front-loaded sentences with no padding. It is efficient, though the terseness tips into under-specification rather than crispness.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but the agent still lacks the essentials: what a "working method" contains, whether it is prose instructions or structured data, and what to do with an unrecognized skill name. For a lookup tool with a 0%-documented parameter, the description leaves real gaps.

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% for the single "name" parameter, so the description must compensate. It does partially by listing the two admissible skill identifiers, but it never states that the parameter is the skill selector, nor how the schema default of "archibridge" interacts with omitting the argument.

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?

"Returns a working method" is an indirect way of saying it fetches a skill/instruction document, but the verb and resource are only loosely expressed. The enumerated skill names ( archibridge, archicad-mep-review) hint at the retrieval target, yet the agent must infer what a "working method" actually is and how it differs from archicad_search_commands or archicad_command_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?

No guidance on when this tool should be chosen over the sibling tools that also deal with commands and schemas. There is a list of available skills but no statement of what scenario calls for fetching one, or what to do when the desired skill is not in the list.

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