openclaw_skills_detail

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states 'Read-only' and wraps skills.detail, but lacks details on error handling, return format, or permissions. Adequate for a simple read operation, but could be richer.

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?

Very concise: one sentence plus 'Wraps skills.detail. Read-only.' No redundant information, front-loaded with action and 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?

With no output schema, description mentions return fields (manifest, version, dependencies, install state) which is helpful. It lacks details on pagination or structure, but for a detail endpoint this is acceptable. Could mention what 'install state' means, but overall sufficient.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (id: skill id/slug, instance: optional routing). Description adds context by mentioning the fields returned, but does not clarify parameter constraints beyond schema. Baseline score due to high schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves detailed info on a specific skill, listing the fields (manifest, version, dependencies, install state). Distinguishes from sibling tools like skills_search or skills_install by focusing on a single skill's detail.

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?

Description implies use when you need detailed info on a specific skill, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., skills_status for summary, skills_search to find skills). The 'Read-only' tag provides some guidance on safety.

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