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 behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that archived skills are included and that it 'never falls forward after purge,' though the purge wording is terse.

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 two compact sentences and front-loads the core read behavior. There is no filler, and the purge caveat, while brief, adds a meaningful constraint.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description states the content scope and archived/purge behavior, but gaps remain around parameter meaning and alternative routing.

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 only 33%, with just tenant_slug documented. The description does not explain skill_id or revision_id semantics, so it does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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: reading one exact skill revision, including its header, frozen SKILL.md, and manifest. It also scopes archived skills, which implicitly distinguishes it from revision-list and current-skill reads, even though it does not name those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by 'one exact skill revision' and 'including archived skills,' suggesting it is for precise historical reads. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of kb_skills_revisions_list, kb_skills_get, or kb_skills_files_get.

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