claude-skills-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes pattern matching capabilities and the base64 encoding option for images, which are useful behavioral details. However, it doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no documents match the pattern.

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 efficiently structured with two sentences that each serve clear purposes: the first states the core function, the second provides usage context and behavioral details. There's no wasted language, and important information is 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 tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and when to use it. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more information about return formats (beyond the base64 mention), error handling, or performance characteristics.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about what types of documents can be retrieved (scripts, references, assets) and mentions pattern matching, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the 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 specific action ('Retrieve specific documents') and resources ('scripts, references, assets') from a skill. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_skills' and 'search_skills' by focusing on accessing document content rather than listing or searching skills themselves.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use this after searching for skills to access additional resources') and includes examples of what types of resources it handles (Python scripts, data files, reference materials, images). It clearly positions this as a follow-up to search operations.

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