Read a file bundled with a GDEX skill, or list all files in that skill by omitting the path. Use it to inspect skill scripts and assets.
Read a file that ships with a GDEX skill (e.g. gdex-token-risk scripts/token_risk.py). Omit path to list the skill's files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | File path relative to the skill directory, e.g. "scripts/hl_anomaly.py" | |
| skill | Yes | Skill name, e.g. "gdex-hl-anomaly" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v5.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral detail beyond that: omitting path returns a listing rather than file contents. It says nothing about auth requirements, file size limits, or error behavior when a path doesn't exist.
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?
Two compact sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the optional-parameter behavior immediately after. No filler or restated schema text.
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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (file contents, or a file listing when path is omitted). It is nearly complete; the only omission is any note about failure modes for invalid skill names or paths.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema does not: 'path' is optional and omitting it switches the tool into a directory-listing mode. That is a meaningful behavioral meaning layered on top of the schema's simple 'File path relative to the skill directory'.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Read a file that ships with a GDEX skill', with a concrete example (gdex-token-risk scripts/token_risk.py). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like search_gdex_docs or get_sdk_pattern, though the description never names an alternative explicitly.
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 conditional 'Omit path to list the skill's files' gives one clear behavioral rule, which is useful usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance (e.g. how this differs from search_gdex_docs or get_component_guide), so the agent must infer the selection context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.