read_skill_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Read' and yields no information about side effects, error handling, file access restrictions, or return behavior. This is insufficient for a tool that could access file contents.

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 a single, direct sentence that states the essential purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded and immediately conveys the tool's function, making it an ideal length for this simple read operation.

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 has an output schema and fully documented parameters, which cover the 'what' and 'how'. However, the description omits behavioral context such as file-not-found behavior, security restrictions, or whether project_roots affects scope. For a read tool with no annotations, this lack of behavioral completeness leaves gaps, but it is minimally adequate given the structured schema information.

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 schema descriptions cover all parameters (100% coverage) with clear meanings (e.g., 'Path to the file relative to the skill directory'), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description itself does not mention parameters, providing no additional value beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score.

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 action ('Read') and resource ('a supporting file from a skill's directory'), which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like list_skills and activate_skill. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. Although the purpose implies usage, no alternatives or context are given to guide an agent's decision-making.

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