Ler skill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains that a plain call returns full content and a 'referencia' call returns an auxiliary file, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior when a skill/file is missing, or return format.

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 tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the optional parameter noted second. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description roughly covers the return intent ('conteúdo completo'). However, with zero annotation coverage it should say more about permissions, error cases, and the distinction between the full-skill and auxiliary-file reads.

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 50%: 'referencia' is documented in the schema while 'nome' is not. The description adds meaning by clarifying that 'referencia' reads an auxiliary file of the skill, but it never explains 'nome' beyond the obvious implication that it names the skill.

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 states a specific verb+resource: it loads the complete content of a skill (SKILL.md) and, optionally, reads an auxiliary file. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like listar_skills and recarregar_skills, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing versus alternatives such as listar_skills or recarregar_skills. Usage is only implied by the verb 'carrega'.

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