get_skill_guide

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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that the file is 'locally installed', which is useful context, but it does not disclose behavior for unsupported skills or missing files. This is acceptable for a simple read operation but adds only modest value beyond the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying what the tool does and what it targets. The only minor issue is the ambiguous word 'either', but structurally it is very concise.

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-only tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema present, the description is mostly adequate. However, it fails to enumerate the valid skill values or provide any usage context relative to sibling tools, which leaves a real gap for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.

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 has one required string parameter with 0% schema description coverage and no enum. The description indicates that 'skill' selects one of the supported management skills, but it never names those skills or explains valid values. This adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name and leaves the agent guessing about acceptable input.

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 ('Read') and the resource ('the locally installed SKILL.md'), and it scopes the tool to 'supported management skill'. It is not a tautology and gives enough specificity to distinguish it from generic file-reading or search tools, though it does not name the specific supported skills.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of siblings like read_file, search, or fetch. There is no mention of prerequisites, fallback tools, or exclusions. The description implies its purpose but does not help an agent choose among alternatives.

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