swebsy_get_skill

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does communicate the primary behavior ('Returns the full instructions for that skill') and positions the tool as pre-action guidance, which implies a read-only operation. However, it stops short of explicitly stating that it has no side effects or mentioning any prerequisites, so some transparency is left implicit.

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 one front-loaded sentence that packs the core action, timing, relevant examples, and return value with no filler. Every clause earns its place, and the structure makes the most important information immediately visible.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is fully sufficient: it says what the tool returns, when to call it, and the schema enumerates every acceptable skill value. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and understand the result.

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 schema already documents the only parameter with an enum and a short description, giving it a solid baseline. The tool description goes beyond that by mapping enum values to real-world situations, such as 'adding animations' for animation and 'editing the nav' for nav-management, which helps an agent choose the right skill.

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 the action ('Load deep, on-demand guidance') and the resource ('for a specific area'), and the examples make it easy to distinguish this knowledge-retrieval tool from the sibling editing tools. It also explicitly says it returns the full instructions for the skill, so an agent knows what to expect.

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 gives clear timing guidance ('before acting on it') and enumerates concrete scenarios such as adding animations, composing a page, and editing the nav. It does not name alternative tools (e.g., get_builder_guide or list_skills) or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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