skills_get_reference

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses the two-phase interaction and reading behavior. Lacks explicit mention of idempotency or error handling, but is sufficiently transparent for a read operation.

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?

Three sentences, no wasted words. Structured as STEP 3a, two-phase, with condition. Front-loaded with purpose and ends with usage rule.

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?

Covers key aspects: purpose, input semantics, usage condition, output existence (via output schema). Could mention output format but schema handles that. Complete for a straightforward 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds meaning: explains the 'list' default for filename and how it enables the two-phase workflow. Could clarify skill_id's role more, but compensates well overall.

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 it fetches a reference document bundled with a skill, specifying file types (markdown files: checklists, policies, etc.). The 'STEP 3a' prefix and differentiation from siblings like skills_get_body make the purpose unambiguous.

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 states when to call: only when tier3_manifest lists reference files and skill instructions name one, with a clear directive not to load speculatively. The two-phase usage pattern is fully explained.

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