get_skill_instructions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. '读取' implies a read operation, but the description never states whether the call is side-effect free, how large the returned template is, or what a missing/invalid skill yields. For a zero-annotation tool this is a significant gap.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the purpose and then the value mappings, with no filler. It is slightly cramped but every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate: it names the purpose and partially documents the enum. It falls short by omitting three of the eight skill values and giving no sense of what the returned template contains.

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, and it does map five enum values (nlmodel, estimate, ppt, permitted_cost, national_econ) to their meanings. However three enum values (feasibility_report, econ_report, national_report) remain unexplained anywhere, leaving the compensation incomplete.

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?

States a specific verb (读取/read) and resource (技能工作流指令模板, skill workflow instruction templates), so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling get_protocol_instructions, which also appears to serve instruction retrieval.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. The sibling list contains get_protocol_instructions, an obvious alternative for instruction retrieval, yet the description makes no attempt to route between them.

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