Github Get Skill

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context: the same content is available as a skill:// resource, which informs how the tool behaves. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences with zero wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the resource note is a helpful addition without being verbose.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description covers purpose and usage sufficiently. It mentions the resource alternative, which adds completeness. It could explicitly mention when to use it vs. github_list_skills, but that's implied and not critical.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the name parameter already described as 'Skill name as github_list_skills reports it, e.g. pr-review'. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Reads one skill in full' – a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from github_list_skills by focusing on a single skill and mentions the skill:// resource alternative, which sets it apart from siblings.

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 implicit guidance: use this tool to read a skill's full content, and notes that if a client reads resources, this tool is unnecessary. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like github_list_skills, but the resource note gives clear context for when to use this tool.

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