get_skill

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

The annotations declare 'readOnlyHint: true', so the description aligns by stating 'Get', confirming a read-only operation. However, the description does not add behavioral context beyond what the annotations already convey, such as permissions, rate limits, or side effects. With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 reflects no additional value.

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, compact sentence that conveys the essential purpose. It uses no unnecessary words, and the critical information is front-loaded ('Get a single reusable writing skill'). Every element serves a purpose.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient information to understand the tool's function and input. It could optionally mention what is returned (e.g., 'Returns the skill object'), but the lack of that detail is minor given the tool's simplicity and the clarity of the purpose.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, with the 'name' parameter fully documented (pattern, length constraints, allowed characters). The tool description adds the context 'reusable writing skill' but does not supplement parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get a single reusable writing skill by name' uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the exact resource ('single reusable writing skill'), and the input schema confirms retrieval by a unique identifier ('name'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_skills' (which retrieves all skills) and mutation tools ('create_skill', 'update_skill', 'delete_skill').

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 usage when a specific skill name is known, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_skills' (for browsing) or direct comparisons to sibling actions. No criteria or exclusions are provided, relying solely on the tool's name and brief description.

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