run_skill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds valuable detail about resolution order ('user-local first, then npm-installed') and the file paths involved, while also clarifying that 'run_skill' actually retrieves rather than executes. It doesn't describe failure behavior, but it gives materially useful context beyond the bare function.

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 sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the fallback behavior is presented compactly in the second sentence. Every sentence 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 simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the essential purpose, return content, and resolution behavior. It lacks explicit error-case guidance and doesn't elaborate on how 'context' affects the result, but the schema fills the parameter gap and the description conveys sufficient operational context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning for 'context' or 'name' beyond the inline schema example, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get the full prompt/instructions for a skill'. It distinguishes itself from execution-focused tools by clarifying the purpose is to fetch instructions for inline use, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like build_skill_context.

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 intended use is implied: use this to retrieve a skill's prompt for inline use. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools like list_skills, tune_skill, or build_skill_context.

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