Read OpenSTAAD skills

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds useful behavior context by mentioning sub-paths like 'staad-steel-design/assets/DESIGN_CODES' to read reference files, and explains skills provide domain-specific guidance.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the primary purpose, followed by prerequisite guidance and examples. No redundant or filler content.

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 simple read tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description fully covers how to use it: what it reads, how to discover available skills, and how to pass names or sub-paths. The output schema handles return values, so no additional explanation is needed.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter description, but the description adds concrete examples ('["staad-analysis"]' and sub-paths) and clarifies that sub-paths read reference files within a skill. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'List of skill names or sub-paths'.

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 or more skills by name, with the verb 'read' and resource 'skills'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like discover_api (lists skills) by describing the sub-path capability for reading reference files.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Use discover_api first to list available skills', providing a clear prerequisite and context. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the read-only nature and examples suggest it is for accessing skill content, not for executing commands.

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