nexo_skill_get

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It correctly implies a read-only query and mentions the content of the response (execution metadata, approval state). However, it does not disclose whether the tool has side effects, requires authentication, or has rate limits, leaving some ambiguity.

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 sentence, very concise and front-loaded. However, it could include a bit more detail without becoming verbose, such as clarifying that it returns a single skill object.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and content. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., JSON object) or any error conditions, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 single required parameter 'id' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description does not add any semantic information about what the 'id' represents (e.g., skill ID format, scope), forcing the agent to infer from context.

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 verb (Get) and resource (a skill's full details), and specifies what is included (execution metadata and approval state). This effectively distinguishes it from related siblings like nexo_skill_list (which lists skills without full details) and nexo_skill_create (which creates).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as nexo_skill_result or nexo_skill_stats. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts where a different tool would be more appropriate.

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