get_agent_skills

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns a guide and lists its contents, which is sufficient for a read-only documentation tool. It doesn't mention side effects or output format, but these are not critical for a static guide retrieval.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, then efficiently lists the guide's contents in bullet points. Every sentence earns its place without 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 zero-parameter documentation tool, the description is complete. It clearly states what the tool returns and what the guide covers, which is sufficient for an agent to decide to call it. No additional context is needed.

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 and the schema coverage is trivially 100%, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter details since there are none to document.

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 clearly states the tool returns a comprehensive guide for delegating tasks, naming the resource and its purpose. It distinguishes itself from the sibling execution tools (codex_run, antigravity_run) by being a documentation resource rather than an action.

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 tells agents to read this guide to understand key aspects of delegation, implying it should be used before executing tasks. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it, though the contrast with execution tools is implicit.

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