Read a skills skill file

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: binary files are returned base64-encoded, which materially affects how an agent consumes the response.

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 sentences with no filler: purpose, parameter behavior, examples, and special return encoding are all included efficiently. Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with strong annotations and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. The only gap is the exact format or scope of the 'name' param, which keeps it from being fully self-contained.

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 only 50% and the description partially compensates by explaining relative paths with examples. However, the 'name' parameter remains somewhat ambiguous ('skill name/path'), and the description does not clearly specify whether it accepts a name, a path, or both.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and a clear resource ('a file bundled with a skill'), and explains the addressing scheme with concrete examples. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like skills_get_skill, skills_search_skills, and skills_list_skills.

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 intended use is implied by the description and examples, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like skills_get_skill. For a small sibling group, an explicit 'when to use' statement would strengthen the definition.

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