Read one skill's method (its SKILL.md) — only the methodology and engineering skills are readable; strategy, lens, pillar and copy skills are sealed and will be refused.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | the skill's name as the skills tool lists it |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: a whole class of skills is sealed and requests will be refused, which is a failure mode the agent must anticipate.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and the refusal caveat packed into the trailing clause. No waste.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and the key error case well. It does not hint at the shape of the returned SKILL.md content, a minor gap only.
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 coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter ('name'), whose schema description already says it is the name as listed by the skills tool. The description adds no syntax, format, or naming detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.
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 (read) and resource (one skill's method / SKILL.md), plus scope. It distinguishes this from the sibling 'skills' tool by clarifying it fetches a single skill's content rather than listing skills.
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?
Explicitly states when-not: strategy, lens, pillar and copy skills are sealed and will be refused, so the agent knows which names to avoid. It does not name an alternative tool to use for those sealed skills, which keeps it from a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.