skill_ver

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the entire skill content is returned (not a summary) and gives an example identifier, but says nothing about behavior when the skill name does not exist or about content size.

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?

A single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the rationale trailing as a subordinate clause. No filler, though the example and rationale could be tightened.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately states the return value ('contenido completo') and its purpose. Missing only error/edge-case behavior (unknown skill name), which is minor here.

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% and the schema already documents 'nombre' as the skill folder under .agents/skills. The description contributes only an example value ('chilean-employment-legal'), which is mildly useful but does not exceed the schema's own documentation. Baseline 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+resource: 'Devuelve el contenido completo de una skill' (returns the full content of a skill). It clearly conveys what it does, but never distinguishes itself from the obvious sibling 'skills_listar' or explains why one would fetch a single skill rather than list them.

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 clause 'así el harness aplica el criterio del producto sin abrir archivos a mano' gives a use rationale (let the harness apply product criteria without manual file access), which implies usage. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or reference to the alternative tool 'skills_listar' for discovering skill names.

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