Read OpenSTAAD skills

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds useful context about reading sub-paths and reference files within a skill. It does not contradict annotations and provides behavioral details beyond the structured hints.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with the core purpose, then providing usage prerequisites, context, and examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description fully covers usage, prerequisites, and examples. No critical information 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?

The schema already documents the 'skills' parameter with 100% coverage, and the description adds meaning by showing example formats (e.g., ['staad-analysis'] or sub-paths) and explaining that sub-paths access reference files. This goes beyond the schema's basic description.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Read' with the resource 'one or more skills by name', and distinguishes itself by explaining that it can also read sub-paths/reference files within skills. This differentiates it from sibling tools like discover_api (listing skills) and execute_code (running code).

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?

Explicitly instructs to use discover_api first to list available skills, and provides concrete examples of valid inputs. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare with execute_code, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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