get_skills

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Каталог' suggests a read-only listing, but the description does not explicitly state that, nor does it mention response contents, pagination behavior, authentication needs, or side effects. This is a significant gap for an unannotated tool.

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 short sentence with no filler; the resource and purpose are front-loaded. It is concise enough, though the brevity leaves behavioral and usage details unaddressed.

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 simple retrieval tool with zero required parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally workable. Still, there is no output schema, no annotation context, and no mention of response format or pagination, so an agent must make reasonable assumptions beyond the description.

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 100%, so the schema already explains count, offset, and skill_name. The description adds no parameter-level details, but the high coverage makes the baseline score appropriate. It only provides loose context that these skills are relevant to routing.

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 identifies the resource clearly: 'Каталог навыков (skills) ACD для маршрутизации' (catalog of ACD routing skills). This makes the tool’s purpose inferable and distinguishes it from action-oriented sibling tools like send_sms or update_scenario. It does not name a sibling or use an explicit verb, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

'Для маршрутизации' implies the tool is relevant when working with ACD routing/skills. However, the description does not explicitly say when to choose this over related siblings like get_acd_state, skill-account-info, or skill-call-history, and gives no exclusion or alternative guidance.

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