retrace_skill_read

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation, but the description says nothing about error behavior for a nonexistent skill, whether all instructions are returned in one response, or how skill names are discovered. For a no-annotation tool this is thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb and resource come first and the timing cue follows, so nothing needs reordering or trimming.

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?

The tool is simple (one required param, no output schema, no nesting), so the bar is low, but the description omits the one thing an agent likely needs: that valid skill names come from retrace_skill_list. What the returned instructions look like is left implicit as well.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema documents it fully at 100% coverage, including an example value (mips-r5900-engineering). The description adds no meaning about the name parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: read the full instructions of one bundled skill. The word 'one' plus 'full instructions' distinguishes it from the sibling retrace_skill_list, which presumably enumerates rather than reads. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 phrase 'before performing the matching engineering task' gives a sequencing cue that implies when to call it, which is more than nothing. However, there is no explicit routing to retrace_skill_list for discovering valid names, and no statement about when this is unnecessary or what happens with an unknown skill name.

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