Get a skill by name

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the HTTP endpoint and authorization class ('board_or_agent'), which provides some context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, response format). 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 extremely concise—two short sentences that front-load the main purpose. Every sentence is functional; no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the annotations provide safety info and the tool has an output schema (not shown), the description is minimally complete. However, it omits any hint about what the response contains (e.g., skill properties). For a simple fetch tool, this is adequate but could be improved.

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 elaborate on the 'skillName' parameter (e.g., case sensitivity, allowed characters, or existence expectations). The single parameter is self-explanatory given the tool name, but no added value beyond the schema structure.

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 'Get a skill by name', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling skills tools like pc_get_skills_catalog or pc_get_skills_available by focusing on retrieval by name. The HTTP method and path further solidify purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pc_get_skills_index or pc_get_skills_catalog. While it mentions authorization class, it does not explain usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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