skill_read_resource

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that directory traversal is not permitted, which is a meaningful security behavior. The 'read' verb implies a non-destructive operation. However, it does not mention potential error cases or authorization requirements.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action and a key safety constraint without any fluff. Every word adds value.

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 tool with an existing output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and security boundary. However, it lacks parameter semantics and usage alternatives, which are important for an agent to invoke it correctly. It is minimum viable but not fully complete.

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 input schema provides no descriptions for 'name' and 'resource_path' (0% coverage), and the description does not explain these parameters. It only hints via 'supporting skill resource' that the resource is tied to a skill, leaving the exact meaning of the parameters unclear.

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 specifies the resource type ('supporting skill resource'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like skill_read which likely reads a skill itself. The additional security note about directory traversal further clarifies its scope.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like skill_read or skill_resource_load. The usage scenario is only implied by the purpose statement, with no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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