project_skill_read

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

Annotations already declare read-only, but the description adds a critical behavioral guarantee: it never executes !command or bundled scripts, and clarifies that allowed-tools is metadata only. This goes beyond the readOnlyHint and provides important safety context.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then return values and safety caveat. Every sentence adds value with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the essential behavior (reading a skill, return contents, no execution, read-only) and the output schema exists for return values. Minor gaps remain around 'project' and 'max_bytes', but these are secondary to the main purpose and the tool is adequately scoped.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains skill_id as the path to SKILL.md and notes lease_id is optional, but it does not explain the 'project' or 'max_bytes' parameters, which remain ambiguous. Partial compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool reads one skill by skill_id, specifying the resource (SKILL.md file) and how the ID is obtained (from project_skills_list). It distinguishes itself from the sibling list tool by focusing on a single skill retrieval.

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 implies when to use the tool: after obtaining a skill_id from project_skills_list. It gives context on the skill_id source, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state exclusions. The usage is clear enough from the phrasing.

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