skill.get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one trait: 'instructions remain a lazy resource' – suggesting the metadata returned does not eagerly include instruction content. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires permissions, or has side effects. The word 'resolve' hints at some computation, but the overall behavior is under-specified.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action and a key behavioral nuance. It is concise, but arguably too terse given the lack of annotations and parameter coverage.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered, but the description still lacks necessary context for correct invocation. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., must the skill exist?), error behavior, or when to prefer this over sibling tools. For a simple get with no annotations, the description leaves significant gaps in usage context.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'exact or latest' adds meaning to the optional 'version' parameter (exact when specified, latest when null). However, it offers nothing about 'skill_id' beyond what the schema already labels as 'Skill Id'. This is a partial compensation – the version semantics are helpful, but skill_id is left to inference.

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 tool resolves skill metadata, distinguishing it from skill.list (which lists) and skill.validate/enable/disable (which modify or check). 'Resolve' is a bit abstract but combined with 'exact or latest skill metadata' the core action is clear. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings but the name and context imply a single-item retrieval.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention skill.list for enumerating skills or skill.validate for checking validity. The only hint is 'exact or latest' which implies version selection, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'use skill.list for...'.

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