skill_render

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: credential redaction in the output. This is important for security transparency. However, it does not mention if the render is synchronous, the size limits, or what happens if the skill_id is invalid.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and immediately adding unique value about credential handling. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

Given the tool has a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete enough for a straightforward render operation. It covers the input, output format, and a key security behavior. One could argue for 5, but the lack of any mention of error cases or performance characteristics slightly reduces completeness.

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% for the single parameter (skill_id: UUID of the skill to render). The description adds context on what the parameter is for (which skill to render) but does not add extra semantics beyond the schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the non-redundant credential redaction mention earns a +1.

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 renders a skill as a human-readable markdown document, adding value over the name by specifying the output format (markdown) and key behavior (redacting credentials). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tool_render or skill_create.

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 this is for generating human-readable documentation of a skill, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., tool_render for individual tools, skill_list for listing). It also does not mention prerequisites like the skill needing to exist.

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