get_skill_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states that it generates a prompt; it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it has side effects, or what the output format is. For a tool that likely triggers further agent actions, this 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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately front-loaded, stating the action and key input immediately.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose but omits details like what the generated prompt is used for or how the output is structured. Given the low complexity, this is minimally adequate but could be improved with a sentence on its role in the skill-refinement workflow.

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% and the parameter already explains it takes a comma-separated list. The description restates this (memory ID list) without adding new meaning, so it meets the baseline of 3 but doesn't exceed it.

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 (generate) and the resource (skill refinement prompt) plus the input basis (memory ID list). It distinguishes the tool's purpose from generic prompt tools, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or contrast with siblings like get_reflection_prompt.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like get_reflection_prompt and batch_get_reflection_prompts, the description gives no context for selection, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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