fetch_skill

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. 'Fetch raw skill content from GitHub' implies a read operation, and 'from GitHub' adds source context. However, it does not mention auth requirements, error behavior, response format, or side effects, making it adequate but minimal for a read-only fetch.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. It efficiently conveys the core action and subject.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description indicates the tool returns raw skill content, which addresses the main output, but lacks details on the format (e.g., text vs. JSON) or error conditions. This is minimally complete for a straightforward fetch operation.

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%, with 'identifier' described as 'Skill name or owner/repo format (required)'. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, but the schema already fully documents the parameter, so the baseline 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 'Fetch raw skill content from GitHub' uses a specific verb ('fetch') and resource ('raw skill content'), and identifies the source (GitHub). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_skills (listing) and search_skills (searching) by indicating a one-by-one retrieval of content.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclude cases where other sibling tools would be more appropriate.

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