get_skill_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Read' conveys a non-mutating operation, and the text/binary distinction sets useful expectations. However, it does not mention what happens if the file is missing, path restrictions, or encoding, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 a single focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and then states a key limitation, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it defines scope, file type, and the binary-asset limitation. It could be slightly stronger with an explicit pointer to get_skill_bundle for binary assets, but the context signals already suggest that path.

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 should compensate. It adds that the file is inside the Skill directory and that only text files are supported, which helps interpret relative_path. It does not elaborate on skill_id, but the parameter name and the default relative_path provide reasonable context.

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 uses a specific verb ('read') and resource ('a text file in the Skill directory'), which clearly states the tool's function. It also draws a boundary by noting binary assets are only available via content packages, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_skill_bundle.

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 explicitly says binary assets are only provided through content packages, which implies this tool should be used for text files and not for binary assets. It does not name an alternative tool directly, but the sibling list and wording make the intended split clear.

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