get-skills

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 doesn't state whether information is always available, whether it could return empty results, whether the data reflects a specific snapshot, or how comprehensive the skill list is. For a read-only retrieval with zero annotation coverage, this is a thin disclosure.

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 states the action and target clearly. Zero wasted words, perfectly front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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?

This is a simple 0-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description communicates the core purpose but doesn't mention return format, granularity, or potential for empty results. Given the low complexity, the description is adequate but could benefit from noting what the output looks like.

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 100% and there are 0 parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond what the schema already conveys. Per the rubric, 0 params sets a baseline of 4, which is appropriate here since no parameter documentation is needed.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('Priya Gautam's technical skills and technology stack'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying both the content type (skills/tech stack) and subject (Priya Gautam), differentiating it from get-projects, get-education, etc. The only minor gap is not explicitly contrasting against search tools or list-sections.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling tool names imply differentiation (get-projects, get-education), the description doesn't explicitly state when this should be preferred over search-priya-profile or list-sections, nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations.

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