Read a skill

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety and repeatability profile is known. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond purpose—it says 'full content' (return size) and references the source of the name. It does not contradict annotations and adds small value without redundancy.

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 a single sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded ('Fetch the full content of one skill'), followed by the key constraint ('by name') and the source. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a simple, read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description tells the agent what it returns ('full content') and where the name comes from. Combined with annotations, the agent has everything needed to call it correctly. Nothing essential 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by specifying that the 'name' parameter is the skill name taken from skills_list. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema property, telling the agent how to obtain a valid value. It does not define format, but the source is sufficient for a single string parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch'), a resource ('full content of one skill'), and the key parameter ('by name'). It also references the source of the name ('from skills_list'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like skills_list that list all skills. This is unambiguous.

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 implies usage context: you need a skill name, and that name comes from skills_list. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the reference to skills_list gives clear guidance on where names originate. This provides enough context without being explicit about exclusions.

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