skill.read

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals that this is a safe read operation, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the tool returns instructions for the chat model to follow, not server-executable code. This changes how the agent should process the output and prevents a potentially harmful misinterpretation.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded ('Read the recommended installed SKILL.md or one of its supporting files'), and the second sentence earns its place by giving essential processing guidance.

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 main action and the nature of the return value (instructions to follow), which is useful given there is no output schema. However, source_id and resource_path are left undefined, no output format is described, and there is no explicit guidance for selecting this skill-read tool over file.read. It is adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only vaguely suggests that skill_name selects the installed SKILL.md and that a supporting file may be read via another parameter. The optional source_id parameter is not explained at all, and resource_path is never explicitly named or defined. Some meaning is added, but not enough for a tool with three undocumented parameters.

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 starts with a specific verb and object: 'Read the recommended installed SKILL.md or one of its supporting files.' This clearly identifies a read operation on skill files and separates it from sibling tools like skill.install, skill.update, and skill.search. The skill-based scope also distinguishes it from generic file.read.

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?

It gives actionable context: use this after a skill is recommended or installed, and follow the returned instructions. It also tells the model what to do when those instructions reference another skill or local resource—read that resource explicitly rather than treating the skill as executable server code. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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