read

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. It discloses that frontmatter metadata is stripped, that category paths return SKILL.md body plus children, and that skill paths return Markdown body. It does not cover error behavior or explicitly confirm non-mutating behavior, but the read action and output details make the tool's behavior reasonably transparent.

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 with the core purpose, followed by path-type behavior and the important help-first warning. Every sentence contributes useful information with no repetition or filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the return behavior for both category and skill paths and notes frontmatter stripping. Minor gaps such as invalid-path behavior and the exact shape of the children list keep it from being fully complete, but it is sufficient for a simple single-parameter read tool.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single path parameter, including dot-separated path examples and the instruction not to include the .md extension. The description reinforces the path-type distinction but does not add substantial parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action and resource: 'Read the full content of a specific skill or category.' It also distinguishes behavior for category paths versus skill paths, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and separable from sibling tools like list, search, and keywords.

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 clear context for how to use the tool based on path type, and it includes an explicit usage prerequisite: 'Always call help first if unsure how to use the library.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the guidance is still strong.

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