read_skill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return value (Drive fileId) and the lookup behavior, but it does not explain the 'mirrored' concept, the effect of teamId, or error/not-found behavior. The parenthetical '(novel-dialogue)' is ambiguous—whether it is an example or a hardcoded value—which slightly undermines transparency.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, no redundant information, and the core purpose and next step are front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and next step. However, it omits teamId and leaves the parenthetical example ambiguous, making it not fully complete. It is adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'name' parameter via 'by name' and provides a sample value, but it says nothing about the optional teamId parameter. Since half the parameters are undocumented, the description falls short for a tool with no schema descriptions.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Find'), a distinct resource type ('mirrored skill'), the lookup criteria ('by name'), and the result ('return its Drive fileId'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_skills (which likely lists all) and read_file (which reads a file given its ID).

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 provides a usage context by instructing 'Use read_file next', which tells the agent the natural next step after obtaining the fileId. It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, but the workflow hint is clear enough for this focused tool.

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