goclaw_skill_get

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 states this is a 'Get' operation, implying it's read-only, but doesn't confirm safety aspects like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on errors (e.g., if the skill ID is invalid). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand its behavior.

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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It lacks details on what 'details' include, error handling, or behavioral traits, which could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively in varied contexts.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the input schema, which has 100% coverage and clearly documents the 'id' parameter as 'Skill ID'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance or clarify parameter usage further.

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 details') and resource ('specific skill'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'goclaw_skill_list' (which presumably lists multiple skills), nor does it specify what 'details' include, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'goclaw_skill_list' or other skill-related tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a skill ID from another operation, or any exclusions for its use.

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