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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so well: it discloses the return shape ({name, markdown, meta}), explains what markdown and meta contain, and describes the failure mode (unknown name returns {error} listing existing names). It does not cover permissions, size limits, or pagination, but for a read tool that is a minor gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by the usage trigger and return contract. No filler, no restatement of the name, and the error behavior is placed last where it belongs.

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?

With one required parameter, full schema coverage, an existing output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers exactly what is needed: what it returns, when to call it, and what happens on failure. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the schema already documents 'name' as required with format-tidying notes and an example, so the baseline is 3. The description only reinforces that the name comes from list_skills and that unknown names error — useful but not meaningfully additive over 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the full steps of one skill') and defines scope by distinguishing it from the sibling list_skills, which only enumerates skills. An agent can tell it apart from list_skills, get_page, and get_process_map without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing and context: 'Use it after list_skills when you are about to carry out or explain a procedure the team repeats.' It names the prerequisite tool and the triggering situation. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. browsing vs. executing), so it is not a full 5.

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