get_skill

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the 404 failure mode for namespaced names, clarifies the url_slug vs name distinction, and notes that the UUID also works. This goes well beyond a generic 'get' statement, though it doesn't address auth or rate limits.

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 front-loaded with the tool's primary purpose and return contents, followed by a focused paragraph on the one parameter. Every sentence adds meaningful guidance that cannot be inferred from the minimal schema, with no filler.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description supplies all necessary context: what is returned, which identifier to pass, why other identifiers fail, and what works as an alternative. The agent has everything needed to call the tool correctly.

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 fully compensates. It explains what slug is, why the registry name may fail, how namespaced names map to url_slug, the URL-segment constraint, and that UUID is also accepted. This is exemplary parameter documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get one skill's full record') and enumerates exactly what the record contains: scan status, benchmark evidence, SkillScore, ratings, and SKILL.md body. This makes it immediately distinct from the sibling tools search_skills and get_leaderboard.

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 clearly directs the agent to use the skill's url_slug from search results instead of its name, which is essential operational guidance. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the context that this is a single-record fetch after search is clear enough.

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