read_skill

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reads instructions, file structure, and dependency info, and notes that instructions contain role and execution rules. This is a read operation with no side effects implied, and the description gives meaningful context beyond a bare 'reads skill'.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value. The first sentence specifies what the tool does, the second gives usage guidance and context about the content. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequately complete. It explains what is read and when to use it. It does not describe the return format, but for a simple read operation this is a minor gap, not a major deficiency.

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 single parameter 'name' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), including the requirement for an exact name from search results. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond reinforcing the workflow context, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool reads a skill's full instructions (SKILL.md), file structure, and dependency info. It uses a specific verb (read) and resource (skill), and distinguishes from siblings like list_skill_files and load_skill_file by explicitly mentioning the full instructions and broader scope.

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 says to call this after search_skills to load a skill, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like load_skill_file or list_skill_files, but the workflow context is helpful and sufficient for a simple read operation.

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