skills-master-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies what happens when the path has no skill.md ('returns directory listing'), which is not inferable from annotations alone. However, it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance and parameter details. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what it does, the second when to use it, and the parameter section clarifies behavior and defaults. No wasted words.

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 read-only tool with comprehensive annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint) and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It explains the tool's purpose, usage context, and fallback behavior. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on return values (e.g., format of directory listing).

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 the schema already fully documents all parameters. The description repeats parameter names and provides examples (e.g., 'anthropics', 'claude-code'), but doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Read') and resource ('skill file content (SKILL.md) from a GitHub repository'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like install_skill and remove_skill. It specifies the exact file being read (SKILL.md) and the source (GitHub repository), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 this tool ('Use to preview a skill before installing'), providing clear context for its application. It also distinguishes from alternatives by focusing on previewing rather than installing or removing skills, which are handled by sibling tools.

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