skill_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states that the response includes full content and version, providing useful behavioral context for a read operation. While it omits error handling and auth details, the 'get' verb inherently signals a read, and the description adds meaningful return behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 getter, the description is complete: it names the resource, the parameter is fully defined in the schema, and it explains the return payload (full content and version), which is important since there is no output schema. No critical gaps remain.

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 provides 100% coverage for skill_id with a clear description, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'by ID' merely restates the schema and adds no new semantic detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('a single skill by ID'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like skill_list and skill_search by emphasizing single-item retrieval by ID. The addition of 'including its full content and version' further clarifies the scope.

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 use when you have a specific skill ID and need full content/version, but it does not explicitly mention when to use alternative tools like skill_search or skill_list, nor does it state exclusions. Guidance is present only by implication.

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