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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: reads the *live* version, includes the full version history in the result, and is explicitly 'Free' (no credit cost) – a behavioral/cost trait annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and return shape, followed by the one parameter that needs semantic help, closed with a one-word cost note. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back – it does, via the file-map shape and the version-history mention. It also covers cost. It stops short of explaining `skill_id` semantics or error behavior for an invalid version, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains `version` well (reads a non-live version, e.g. a draft awaiting owner approval), but `skill_id` is left entirely unexplained in both schema and description. Partial compensation only.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return one custom skill's files') and even describes the return shape (`{path: text}`), which distinguishes it from the plain skill_read sibling by scoping to custom skills. It does not explicitly name the non-custom counterpart, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 clear guidance for the `version` parameter ('reads another version, such as a draft still waiting for the workspace owner'), which tells the agent when to use it. However, it never says when to choose this tool over `hyreflow_skill_read` or `hyreflow_custom_skills_list`, leaving the tool-selection decision to inference.

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