get_skill

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' the skill content, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm this or disclose any side effects, authorization needs, or output specifics. The absence of safety context is a significant gap.

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 concise sentence, which is efficient in terms of length. However, it is under-specified: it omits critical information about parameters, behavior, and usage. Conciseness is fine, but the description is not appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool (one param, no annotations, no output schema).

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?

Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter explanations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not tell an agent what constitutes a valid skill_id, what the returned content looks like, or when this tool should be preferred over related tools. The definition fails to provide enough context for reliable invocation.

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 only parameter, skill_id, is entirely unexplained in the description. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to clarify what format skill_id should take, how to obtain it, or whether it references an ID from another tool like list_skills. This leaves the agent with no guidance beyond the parameter's name and type.

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 that the tool retrieves the complete content of a skill, including Markdown. This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from siblings like search_skill (search) and get_skill_prompt (prompt retrieval), though it does not explicitly name these alternatives. The purpose is clear and 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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_skill, list_skills, or get_skill_prompt. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions mentioned. An agent must infer usage from the name and brief description, which is insufficient.

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