get_skill_card

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. '获取' conveys a read/retrieval operation, but the description does not disclose whether any checks or side effects occur, whether authentication is needed, or how errors are surfaced.

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?

One compact sentence with a colon-delimited list covers the full purpose without wasted words. The main verb and resource appear first, making the definition easy to scan.

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 single-parameter getter, the description plus the provided output schema is near-sufficient, and the listed content covers what the card contains. However, it lacks usage context, behavior notes, and parameter guidance, so an agent may still need to infer when to call 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?

The single required parameter skill_id is not explained in the description beyond the schema's title 'Skill Id' and the tool name. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by specifying the expected format or source of skill_id, but it does not.

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 names a specific action ('获取' / get) and a distinct resource ('统一状态卡' / unified status card), then enumerates its contents: purpose, dependencies, risks, license, source, version, and suggested actions. This clearly separates it from sibling getters like get_skill_content and get_skill_bundle.

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 sentence indicates when to use this tool instead of search_skills, get_skill_content, check_compatibility, or diff_skill_versions. The context is implied only by the resource name; there is no explicit guidance or exclusion.

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