Read Skill

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by disclosing key behavioral traits: fully online (no local clone), no files written to disk, skill not installed, and optional local server startup (via uvx) for scanning. It also notes the prerequisite (uv) for the scan. This substantial extra context makes the tool's side effects and operational requirements clear.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, behavior, usage note, args, returns, examples). It front-loads the core purpose, every sentence provides useful information, and the length is appropriate given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, optional scanning, side effects). No redundant or filler content.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explicitly states the return value ('full content of the skill's instructions (SKILL.md) with security scan results'). It also covers prerequisites, side effects, and non-destructive nature. This provides an agent with a complete understanding of what to expect and how to use the tool safely.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning through concrete examples for repo and skillName (e.g., 'existential-birds/beagle', 'python-code-review') and clarifies the enableScan default and uv requirement in the args section. While the schema already documents parameter formats, the examples provide additional concrete usage patterns that help an agent construct valid invocations.

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 begins with a specific verb ('Read') and a clear resource ('a skill's content directly from a GitHub repository'), distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by emphasizing direct content retrieval, and includes an explicit 'IMPORTANT' usage note. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's primary 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 a clear when-to-use statement ('Use this to quickly load skill instructions and verify safety without manual steps') and includes examples. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, which would fully satisfy the rubric for a 5.

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