Fetch the complete skill contract with rules, references, and templates. Use after listing available skills to follow the required instructions before writing code.
WHEN: you need the full skill contract (rules, refs, templates). HOW: call after list_skills; follow linked rules before writing code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skillId | Yes | Skill identifier (e.g. unity-vrc-udon-sharp) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. The description does clarify what the tool returns conceptually ('rules, refs, templates') and implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that no state is modified, nor describe failure or edge-case behavior. This is adequate for a simple read tool but not rich.
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, each earning its place: the first states the trigger condition, the second gives the required call sequence and a follow-up instruction. The WHEN/HOW formatting makes the guidance scannable and front-loaded.
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 low-complexity tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description gives the essential context: what data is returned, when to use it, and how to sequence it after list_skills. It is missing only explicit 'use read_rule instead' guidance to be fully complete.
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 100% description coverage for the single parameter skillId, including an example value. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('read') and a clear resource ('full skill contract') and enumerates its contents: rules, refs, templates. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_skills, which lists skills, and read_rule, which reads a single rule. An agent can tell exactly what this tool is for.
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 states when to use the tool ('WHEN: you need the full skill contract') and how to sequence it ('call after list_skills'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as read_rule for fetching a single rule, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.