skill_file

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: text is returned as text, non-text as base64 with media type, and paths are resolved relative to the skill directory. This gives the agent a realistic model of what the tool will do and return.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the action, the path and response semantics, and the batching guidance. The most important operational detail — reading all files in one call — is clearly stated without padding.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly covers the return format (text vs. base64 with media type). It could additionally hint at error behavior for invalid paths or missing files, but given the strong schema coverage and read-only annotations, the practical guidance is largely complete.

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%, with both parameters already well described, including path relativity and the 8-path maximum. The description mostly reinforces the same semantics and adds output-format context rather than new parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 files a skill bundles,' with precise scoping to a skill's own directory. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like skill_list and skill_load, which enumerate or load skills rather than read their bundled files.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use the tool: whenever a skill's bundled files need to be read, and instructs the caller to request all needed files in one call. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the use case is unambiguous.

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