Get Skills

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that results are grouped by category and that filtering is optional, which is useful. However, it does not describe response format, error behavior, or whether the category list is exhaustive, leaving some behavioral detail to inference for a simple read operation.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with the filtering option. No redundant wording or filler. The 'etc.' is slightly vague but acceptable in context.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no annotations or output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and how to invoke it. It could briefly mention that the output is a grouped structure, but 'grouped by category' already conveys that. Overall, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the category parameter. The description adds no new meaning beyond restating the optional filter, which is the baseline expected when the schema carries full parameter detail.

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 specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('Daksh's skills') with a clear grouping behavior. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_profile and list_projects by focusing on skills, making the tool's purpose 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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever an agent needs Daksh's skills. It provides no exclusion or alternative because none of the sibling tools cover skills. The optional filter guidance adds context for narrowing the call, though it does not explicitly compare against alternatives.

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