get_skill_rules

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses genuinely useful behavior: the server ships no skill files, only working-directory installs are readable, and a missing skill produces an error containing installation guidance rather than an empty result. It does not mention read-only safety, permissions, or return size, but for a simple retrieval tool the disclosure is solid.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the failure contract. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (the SKILL.md text), where it comes from, and what happens on failure. The only minor gap is that it does not state the response form (raw markdown vs. structured wrapper), though 'Return the SKILL.md' largely implies it.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that skill_id maps to a directory name resolved under two possible install roots, and the 'do not invent' clause clarifies that the ID must correspond to a real installed skill.

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 ('Return the SKILL.md of a Fredo QA skill') and even names the resolution locations (skills/<id>/ or .agents/skills/<id>/), which distinguishes it from list_skills, install_skill and the other siblings without opening the schema.

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 gives clear when-to-use context by scoping the call to already-installed skills and adds a when-not/fallback condition: if the skill is not installed the call fails with installation instructions, so the caller should not fabricate rules. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent to install_skill or list_skills to discover valid IDs, which would have made this a 5.

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