read_skill_version

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

With no annotations, the description effectively uses the verb 'Read' to imply a read-only operation. It clarifies the unique identifier (checkpoint number vs versionId) and the resource type. However, it could mention permissions or whether it returns the full version data, but overall it's transparent enough.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core action and key differentiator; the second provides a specific use case. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The description is mostly complete given the tool's simplicity. It lacks an explicit statement about the return value (e.g., returns the skill version object), but since the tool reads a single version, the output is somewhat implied. The absence of an output schema reduces the burden.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters (id and version). The description adds valuable context: version must be an integer checkpoint number from list_skill_versions, and clarifies it's not a versionId. This supplements the schema well.

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 clearly states the tool reads one historical version of a skill by checkpoint number, distinguishing it from list_skill_versions (which lists versions) and restore_skill_version (which restores). It specifies the exact resource and key identification method, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides a clear use case ('diff two versions before rolling back'). While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it or mention alternative tools like read_skill for the published version, the guidance is sufficiently clear for most agents.

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