get_skill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does indicate a non-mutating read operation via '读取', and '全文' hints at the returned content. However, it does not describe error cases, access restrictions on drafts, or response format, which are relevant for a fetch tool without an output schema.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: one short sentence states the action, target, and key parameter. The '【次要】' prefix is minor noise and the lack of usage/context detail keeps it from being a perfect 5, but there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 read tool, the description is close to sufficient: it names the resource and id. But with no output schema and no annotations, the absence of return format or availability caveats leaves meaningful gaps. An agent can call it, but may not know what exactly is returned or how failures manifest.

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 add meaning to the lone 'id' parameter. It does tie the id to a '技能草稿' (skill draft), clarifying what the id references. Still, it adds no detail about id format, source, or how to obtain a valid id, so compensation is only partial.

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 operation: read the full text of a skill draft by id. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_skills, which would be for enumerating skills rather than fetching one draft's full content. The verb '读取' and the resource '技能草稿全文' make the 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 implies usage by '按 id' — use this tool when you have a specific skill draft id and want its full text. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it mention alternatives such as list_skills for discovery or search_knowledge for related lookups. Usage guidance is only implicit.

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