skill_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Read' implying a read-only operation but does not disclose any other behavioral traits (e.g., authentication requirements, rate limits). The vague term 'governed' adds minimal value.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action. It is efficient but lacks structure; however, no word is wasted.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (two params, no output schema), the description adequately states the core functionality. However, it does not explain the return format (e.g., full file contents as a string) or elaborate on 'governed' behavior. It is sufficient but not thorough.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context that file_path can link to 'reference/template/script files', slightly surpassing what the schema provides ('Optional linked file, e.g. references/api.md'). However, it does not add significant new meaning.

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 explicitly states it reads a skill's SKILL.md and optionally linked files via file_path. The verb 'Read' and resource 'skill's full SKILL.md' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like 'read' (generic file read) and 'skill_manage' (management operations).

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 does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings such as 'read' or 'grep'. The term 'governed' hints at access control but is not elaborated. No alternatives are mentioned.

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