get_skill

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints at 'guardrails and checksum' but doesn't explain what these entail—whether they affect performance, security, or data integrity. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, its rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like, leaving significant gaps for a tool with parameters.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. However, the vague terms 'guardrails and checksum' add some noise without clear value, slightly reducing effectiveness.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain key aspects like what a 'skill' is, the meaning of 'guardrails and checksum', expected output, or error scenarios. This is inadequate for a tool that retrieves data by ID/version, as users need more context to use it 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 must compensate. It mentions 'id/version' but doesn't explain what a 'skill' is, the format of the ID, or what 'version' represents (e.g., semantic versioning, timestamp). The terms 'guardrails' and 'checksum' are not linked to parameters, leaving the two parameters largely undocumented beyond their names.

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 'Retrieve' and the resource 'one skill', specifying it's by 'id/version'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'list_skills' which presumably lists multiple skills. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other siblings like 'get_glass_floor' or 'get_taste_context', leaving some ambiguity about the broader toolset 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'guardrails and checksum' but doesn't explain what these are or how they affect usage. There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or comparison with other tools like 'list_skills' for bulk retrieval.

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