get_skill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions 'free' (cost implication), but it does not describe any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error behavior. The minimal description leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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, concise sentence without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with key information. However, it could be improved by including more context without becoming verbose, such as mentioning return format or prerequisites.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not explain the return structure, error cases (e.g., missing ID), or whether the operation is idempotent. For a simple read operation, more completeness is needed for safe agent use.

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 has 0% description coverage for the single parameter skill_id. The description adds 'by id', which clarifies that skill_id is an identifier, but it does not provide format, constraints, or examples. The description barely adds value beyond the schema's parameter names.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('one skill card'), and specifies the scope ('by id'). The addition of 'free' provides extra context about cost. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_skills, though the purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies that the tool should be used when the skill ID is known, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_skills, skill_match). There is no mention of when not to use it.

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