read_skill

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 only restates the action ('Read the complete SKILL.md content') without disclosing return format, potential errors, or any side effects. For a read operation this is less risky, but the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the verb.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and scope, with no redundant words. Perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 one-parameter read tool without an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from read_skill_resource and does not mention edge cases (e.g., invalid ID) or that the response is the raw markdown content. Given the lack of annotations, a bit more context would improve 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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'id', so the schema already documents it. The description adds no extra semantics about the parameter, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (complete SKILL.md content) with a clear parameter (skill ID). It naturally distinguishes from siblings list_skills, list_skill_resources, and read_skill_resource, which target different objects.

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 its use case (reading the main skill content) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like read_skill_resource or list_skills. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, so the agent must infer from the tool name and sibling names.

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