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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful details beyond annotations: a 1 MiB read limit, UTF-8/base64 output modes, revision pinning semantics, and the archived-content requirement.

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?

Two compact sentences with no wasted language. The core operation is front-loaded, followed by the key constraints an agent needs before calling.

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?

The description is largely complete for a read-only file fetch tool, especially because annotations cover safety traits and an output schema exists. The main remaining gap is parameter-level detail for skill_id, path, and tenant_slug behavior.

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?

With only 20% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining revision_id pinning and include_archived behavior. However, it does not add meaning for the required skill_id and path parameters, and tenant_slug is only documented in the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read one skill file'. It also scopes the operation with a size cap and encoding modes, which distinguishes it from siblings such as kb_skills_get or kb_skills_search.

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 gives conditional guidance for revision_id and include_archived, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like kb_skills_edit_put_file or kb_skills_revisions_get.

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