skills / read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful constraint that the name is 'validated' (i.e., invalid names fail rather than fuzzy-matching), but says nothing about what a successful read returns.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the key constraint (exact, validated name) lands immediately.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotations and no output schema, the essentials are present, but the description omits where valid names come from (skills.list) and what the call yields (SKILL.md content). A brief return hint would close the remaining gap.

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 lone 'name' parameter is undocumented in structured fields. The description partially compensates by specifying the name must be 'exact' and 'validated', but gives no format, case-sensitivity, or example of a valid skill name.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one bundled SKILL.md'), and the singular 'one' implicitly separates it from the sibling skills.list. It does not name the sibling explicitly, but an agent can distinguish read-one from list-many without opening the 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?

The phrase 'by its exact, validated skill name' implies this tool is for fetching a single known skill and that the name must already be valid, suggesting skills.list as the source. However, neither that prerequisite nor any when-not condition is stated outright.

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