get_skill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits such as auto-summary for large skills, chunking options, and forced full content with 'all'. However, it does not address error handling (e.g., missing skill) or permissions, which are minor gaps. Overall, it provides good behavioral insight.

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 efficiently packs the purpose and all usage modes. It is front-loaded with the core action and expands with clear, well-structured options. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains the different return formats (full content, TOC, single section). It does not explicitly state that the response is markdown text, but 'SKILL.md content' implies that. For a simple getter tool, this is mostly complete, though a note on the response type would improve it.

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 the description adds significant value beyond the schema. It explains the behavior of each section value ('list' for TOC, '<slug>' for one section, 'all' for full content, omit for auto-summary) and the context of small vs large skills. This enriches the parameter semantics substantially.

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 'Get' and resource 'skill's SKILL.md content', providing a specific and unambiguous purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_skills (listing vs. getting content) and get_agent (different resource). The section chunking detail adds further specificity.

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 detailed guidance on how to use the section parameter (omit, 'list', '<slug>', 'all') but does not explicitly compare this tool to siblings. Usage guidelines for tool selection are implied rather than stated. The agent can infer when to use this tool (to get skill content) vs list_skills (to list skills), but no direct alternatives are mentioned.

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