Retrieve the full content of a named legal skill so agents apply the right criteria without opening files manually.
Devuelve el contenido completo de una skill (por su nombre, ej. 'chilean-employment-legal'): así el harness aplica el criterio del producto sin abrir archivos a mano.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nombre | Yes | Nombre de la skill (carpeta en .agents/skills) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the core behavior: returning full skill content rather than metadata, but it does not mention permissions, missing-skill errors, or other side effects.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical example and colon-delimited rationale are compact and easy to parse.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description sufficiently explains what is returned and why. Minor gaps such as error behavior are acceptable given the tool's simplicity.
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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds value by giving a concrete example of a valid skill name ('chilean-employment-legal'), clarifying the expected naming convention beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the full content of a skill by name, with an example skill name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling skills_listar, but the purpose is otherwise clear.
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?
It offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as skills_listar. The rationale about the harness applying product criteria is contextual motivation, not usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.