get_skill_details

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses what data fields are returned, acting as proxy for missing output schema. However, it omits safety assertions (read-only status), error behaviors (404 if invalid skill_id), or auth requirements.

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?

Single information-dense sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded action ('Get detailed information') followed by parenthetical enumeration of return values. Every word earns its place.

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?

Excellent for a low-complexity tool (1 simple parameter). Compensates for missing output schema by explicitly listing four return data categories. Would be 5 if it included behavioral notes (read-only assurance, error states) due to missing annotations.

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% (skill_id fully documented with description and example), meeting baseline expectations. The description adds no additional parameter guidance, but requires none given the complete schema self-documents the single required field.

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?

States specific verb 'Get' with resource 'skill' and enumerates exact data returned (description, install instructions, trust score, platforms). The word 'specific' clearly distinguishes this from sibling search_skills (discovery) and get_trending_skills (list).

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?

Provides clear context that this tool retrieves details for a single identified skill (implying prerequisite ID), distinguishing it from search/list siblings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., 'use search_skills to find skill IDs first') or state when-not-to-use.

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