get_skill_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without revealing response format, potential errors, authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects. 'Get detailed information' is minimally transparent, but since it's a read operation, it's not misleading—just under-specified.

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 sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and parameters succinctly. No wasted words or redundant information; it is appropriately front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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?

For a simple lookup tool with full parameter schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides enough context to select and invoke the tool. It states the identification method and resource type. It could be improved by hinting at what 'detailed information' includes, but that is not essential for correct 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 schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds the relational context that owner/repo/skillId collectively identify the specific skill, which is a small enhancement. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not go beyond basic identification semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific skill') and clearly identifies the addressing scheme (owner/repo/skillId). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_skills and get_popular_skills, which focus on discovery rather than lookup of a single skill.

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 phrase 'detailed information about a specific skill' implies that this tool is for retrieving details when the identifiers are already known, as opposed to searching or browsing. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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