get_skill

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

No annotations, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the return is the complete playbook rather than a summary, but omits error behavior for an unknown name, exact-match/case sensitivity, and response size — relevant for a full-content fetch.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action stated first and the prerequisite second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers what is returned and how to obtain a valid argument. Only edge-case behavior on lookup failure is missing.

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 sole parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It usefully points to list_skills as the source of valid names, but says nothing about expected format, exact matching, or what a malformed name produces.

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?

Specific verb 'Return' plus a concrete resource 'the full playbook for one skill' tells the agent exactly what it gets back, and the singular scope separates it from the plural list_skills. It stops short of 5 because what a 'skill/playbook' contains is left implicit.

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?

'Call list_skills first for names' gives an explicit prerequisite and sequencing step, which is the main usage decision for this tool. There is no guidance on when not to use it or on what happens if the caller already knows the name is stale.

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