Read a SkeletIQ design

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), the description reveals useful behavior: 'brief' returns a fenced markdown block for AGENTS.md, and every answer states which version it came from and whether that version is a release. This adds meaningful runtime context without contradicting 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?

Three sentences, all purposeful: the first states the tool's purpose, the second provides a practical usage sequence, and the third discloses a key output behavior. There is no fluff, and the most actionable guidance 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?

Given the rich input schema, annotations, and output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the primary mode flow and a notable version-related behavior. It does not need to enumerate every mode because the schema already does that in detail.

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 input schema already documents all parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining how to sequence modes and clarifying that the version/release context appears in every answer, which goes slightly beyond what the schema states.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read a SkeletIQ architecture.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like generate_architecture or critique_architecture by framing it as a read operation, and it adds the key concept of versioned design output.

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 gives explicit in-tool workflow guidance: start with mode 'brief' to orient, then use 'build_order' and 'component' as you build. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling alternatives, but the reading workflow is clear enough to guide invocation.

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