get_skill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the return value and offers no insight into side effects, error conditions, permissions, or the meaning of 'resolved'. As a read operation, it fails to explicitly state that it is non-mutating or what inputs affect the resolution.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action and object. It contains no filler or redundancy, and all words contribute to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

While the output schema exists and covers return value structure, the description lacks essential context about how the skill_id and manifest_path interact, what resolution entails, and when to choose this over the many sibling tools. The tool is simple, but the description leaves notable gaps in operational 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% and the description does not explain either parameter. 'skill_id' is never mentioned, and 'manifest_path' is only alluded to via 'for the given project manifest'. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving the agent to infer parameter purposes from names alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the resource ('resolved skill checklist markdown') and context ('for the given project manifest'). This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishes it from siblings like list_skills or get_project_manifest, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_project_skill.

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 usage context is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_project_skill or list_project_skills, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions. The implied use case (need a resolved checklist) is present but not explicit.

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