get_skills

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

No annotations are provided, and the description is only 'Return skills information.' It conveys a read operation but does not disclose any behavioral details such as whether results are aggregated, sorted, filtered, or require authentication. With no annotations, the description carries the burden and falls short.

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 short sentence with no filler, so it is readable and front-loaded. However, it is underspecified and the content largely paraphrases the tool name, so it does not add much meaningful information.

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 zero-parameter read-only getter with an output schema, the description states the basic purpose adequately. It is not complete, though, because it gives no guidance on selection among sibling getters and no real behavioral context beyond the name.

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 input schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. With zero parameters, the baseline of 4 applies, and the description's reference to 'skills information' is sufficient.

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 verb ('Return') and a resource ('skills information'), so an agent can identify what the tool accesses. However, it is close to restating the tool name and offers no distinguishing details about the kind of skills data returned or how it differs from sibling getters.

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?

There is no statement about when to call this tool versus siblings like get_context, get_profile, or search_personal_data. The agent is left to infer the appropriate selection from the name alone.

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