詳細取得

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read operation via '取得します', but it does not mention error conditions, return structure, or side effects. For a simple get operation this is minimal but not misleading.

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 that states the action and enumerates supported types without unnecessary filler. Every phrase earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 single-parameter lookup, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool targets and what it does. The lack of an output schema makes some ambiguity about return format acceptable, though specifying expected result structure would improve completeness.

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 fully covers the single 'name' parameter, and the tool description enriches it by listing the full range of accepted tool types (workflows, hooks, commands, agents) beyond the schema's basic 'skill/plugin/MCP name'. This adds meaning by clarifying the valid domain of the parameter.

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 a specific action ('取得します' / retrieves) and a specific resource: detailed information about a particular tool. It enumerates the supported tool types (plugin, MCP server, skill, workflow, hook, command, agent), distinguishing it from siblings like search_skills or list_categories that have broader or different 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 this tool is for retrieving details of a known named tool, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives such as search_skills or recommend_skills. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided, so usage context is only implied.

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