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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description explains default return semantics (exact resource text equivalent to resources/read), the asFile mode's server-local path and SHA256, filesystem-sharing constraints for remote clients, that the server never executes a resource, and that capture content remains untrusted data. These are substantive behavioral disclosures.

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 front-loaded with the core action and usage directive, then covers return modes and safety caveats. Every sentence carries useful information, though it is slightly dense and could trim a phrase or two.

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 in detail, and annotations already cover the safety profile. The description completes the picture with mode differences, remote-client constraints, non-execution guarantees, and untrusted-data handling.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful rationale beyond the schema: asFile avoids manual transcription of helper scripts, and the local-stdio-versus-remote distinction clarifies when the mode is viable. The URI parameter is also implicitly tied to catalog-listed resources 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 first sentence gives a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('Reconstruct SKILL.md or supporting resource'), plus scope ('published skill catalog'). An agent can distinguish this from the sibling list_skills, which lists catalog entries rather than returning their contents.

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?

It explicitly says to apply the workflow before working on captures, and it gives mode-selection guidance: local stdio clients may use asFile=true, while remote clients must use text mode. It stops short of naming list_skills as the prerequisite for finding URIs, but the usage context is clear.

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