get_infrontofx_skill

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: a required INFRONTOFX_SKILL_ROOT environment prerequisite, the guarantee that arbitrary paths are never read, and the fact that output includes a content digest.

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?

Two compact clauses with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the environment and path-safety caveats. Slightly awkward phrasing ('Read a selected reference directly ... with a content digest') costs a point but nothing is wasted.

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 single-parameter read tool with a rich annotation set and no output schema, the essential prerequisites and path-safety constraint are present. However, 'content digest' is undefined (checksum vs. summary) and the description never says how content is scoped or how sections are discovered, leaving gaps an agent would hit at call time.

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 0% for the single `section` parameter, so the description must compensate; it only implies that the value names a reference to read. The enum of 24 topic-like values is largely self-documenting, but the description never explains what a 'section' maps to or how the valid values relate to the topics returned by list_infrontofx_topics.

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 a selected reference directly from the installed infrontofx-skill', which tells an agent this is a single-item fetch rather than a list or search. It does not distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling get_infrontofx_guidance, so the boundary between the two getters is left inferential.

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?

'A selected reference' implies the section must already be known, hinting that list_infrontofx_topics / search_infrontofx_skill come first, but no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not statement. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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