skill_resource

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a read operation and specifies the path format, but doesn't mention potential errors (e.g., if skill isn't loaded, file doesn't exist), permissions needed, or what happens with binary files. It provides basic context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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?

The description is perfectly structured with two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance and parameter context. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy, and key information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 read-only tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description provides good context about when to use it and what types of files it handles. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from mentioning what the return value looks like (e.g., file content as string) or common error scenarios.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by providing example paths ('assets/template.md', 'references/api_reference.md') and clarifying that paths are relative to the skill's base directory, but doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific action ('Read a resource file') and resource ('from a skill's directory'), distinguishing it from generic file tools like file_read by specifying the skill context. It explicitly mentions the types of files that can be read (templates, examples, reference documentation), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('after loading a skill to read referenced files') and distinguishes it from alternatives by specifying the skill-specific context. It also clarifies the relationship with sibling tools by implying this is for skill resources rather than general file operations.

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