skill_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the skill is 'precedence-resolved' and omits host filesystem paths, adding behavioral context. However, it does not explain side effects, errors, or what 'complete' means in practice. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 that conveys the core functionality and key distinctions without waste. Every word adds value, making it exemplary in conciseness.

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 an output schema, return values need not be explained. However, the description lacks context about how 'precedence-resolved' works and how this tool relates to the broader skill tool family. It is minimally sufficient but leaves the agent to infer important usage details.

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?

The schema has one required parameter 'name' with zero description coverage. The description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent without guidance on format, allowed values, or how it relates to skill identification. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 action ('Read') and the resource ('one complete precedence-resolved skill'), and adds a distinguishing constraint ('without host filesystem paths'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like skill_read_resource or skill_load, which likely serve different scopes.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer skill_read, skill_load, or skill_read_resource, nor does it specify exclusions. The phrasing implies it is for reading an entire skill, but no alternatives are named.

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