Get Skill Content

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe reads. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations, such as 'If path has no skill.md, returns directory listing,' which helps the agent understand fallback behavior.

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 concise at 6 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then a parameter list with examples, and finally an edge-case behavior. Every sentence adds value without 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?

For a read-only preview tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers parameters, fallback behavior, and usage context. It could mention that the content is raw markdown, but that is implied by 'reads skill file content.' Overall, it is sufficiently complete.

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 concrete examples for each parameter (e.g., 'owner: GitHub username/org (e.g., "anthropics")' and path examples), which adds meaning beyond the schema's basic 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?

Description clearly states it reads skill file content (SKILL.md) from a GitHub repository for previewing before installation. The verb 'read' and resource 'skill file content' are specific, and the context 'from a GitHub repository' is unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like install and list.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use to preview a skill before installing,' which provides clear when-to-use guidance. Sibling tools like install and list are implied alternatives, but no explicit when-not-to-use or exclusions are given.

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