get_character_skill

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the operation and parameter mapping. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, how the date parameter affects results, or any auth, rate-limit, or side-effect considerations.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second clarifies the most cryptic parameter, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

An output schema exists and the input schema documents all parameters, so the essential call details are present. However, for an unannotated tool in a large sibling group, the description lacks usage context and does not explain its relationship to other skill-related endpoints, leaving some selection ambiguity.

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 already covers all parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful value by expanding the grade values into human-readable advancement names such as '0=1차' and '6=6차', which the schema alone does not fully convey.

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 uses a specific verb '조회합니다' (retrieves) and a specific resource '캐릭터 스킬 정보' (character skill information), so it clearly identifies the tool's core function. It does not explicitly differentiate from related skill-focused siblings like get_character_link_skill or get_character_vmatrix, relying instead on the grade mapping to imply scope.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings in the character information family. It explains the meaning of character_skill_grade values, but never states when to choose this over get_character_link_skill, get_character_hyper_stat, or other related tools.

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