Get a catalog skill

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds 'Authorization class: board_or_agent', which provides useful context about who can invoke it. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like response format or error conditions.

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 very concise, using only three lines to state the purpose, HTTP method, and authorization class. There is no unnecessary text. However, it could be slightly expanded to include parameter details without losing conciseness.

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 that an output schema exists, return value details are not needed. However, the description lacks explanation of what a 'catalog skill' is and how this tool fits into the broader skills API. With many siblings, the agent would benefit from a note about its specific use case.

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 0%, but the description adds no information about the parameters. The single required parameter 'catalogId' is not explained. The agent must infer its meaning from the URL path in the description, which is insufficient for proper use.

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 'Get a catalog skill' clearly indicates the action and resource. The name and title make it obvious this retrieves a single catalog skill by ID, distinguishing it from similar tools like pc_get_skills_catalog (likely listing) and pc_get_skills_catalog_by_catalog_id_files (files). However, the description itself does not explicitly differentiate among 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the HTTP method and authorization class, but fails to specify that this is for retrieving a specific catalog skill by ID as opposed to listing all or searching. The agent is left inferring usage from the name alone.

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