get_skill

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 implies a read-only fetch but does not mention what happens if neither id nor name is given, or if both are provided, nor any error handling. The description is not misleading but offers minimal behavioral insight beyond the obvious action.

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 with zero filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 simple getter with no output schema and no required parameters, the description is adequate. It does not specify the response format, but that is not expected given the absence of an output schema. It could mention whether both parameters are optional or if one is preferred, but the lack of that detail is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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 documents both id and name with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description simply restates that the skill can be looked up by ID or name, adding no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. It does not explain precedence or mutual exclusivity, but the schema itself is sufficient.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'a specific skill', which clearly identifies what the tool does. The word 'specific' implies a contrast with listing all skills, but it does not explicitly name a sibling tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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 indicates this tool is for retrieving a single skill by providing an ID or name, which gives clear context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like list_skills, so it lacks the exclusions that would earn a 5.

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