get_skill

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

The description adds transparency beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing the return format: 'SKILL.md content as str, or {"error": str} on failure/not found.' This informs the agent of possible error states. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no superfluous information. It is front-loaded with the core action and return behavior, earning its place.

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 presence of an output schema (indicated by context signals), the description sufficiently covers input, output, and error behavior. It is complete for a simple read tool, though an example usage could enhance it.

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%, with a detailed description for skill_name including examples. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning ('by name' and return type), so 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Read a specific skill's SKILL.md content by name.' It uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('skill's SKILL.md content'), distinguishing it from siblings that generate, list, or fetch other types of documents.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_skills or get_module_doc. It implies usage for retrieving skill content but lacks guidance on exclusion or comparison with sibling tools.

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