qa_get_skill_ratings

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

The verb 'Read' implies a non-destructive operation, and 'raw' suggests no processing, but no annotations exist to confirm safety. The description doesn't mention return format, error conditions, or side effects, though the read-only intention is reasonably clear.

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, tight sentence that front-loads the verb and enumerates the exact data types returned. No filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter read tool, the description covers the core purpose, but it lacks enough detail to disambiguate from several similar sibling getters and does not explain what 'score conversion source' means or when to choose this tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete and the description has no need to explain parameter meaning. Baseline 4 applies.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Read') and names concrete resources: raw skill ratings, attempt counts, uncertainty, and the score conversion source. This makes the tool's function clear and helps distinguish it from siblings like qa_get_attempts, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 for when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like qa_get_attempts and qa_get_memory_score overlap in purpose, and the description does not clarify which to pick in different contexts.

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