get_project_skill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The 'Read' verb clearly signals a non-mutating operation, but it does not disclose behavior on missing files, whether the overlay merges with global skills, or error conditions. It is minimal yet acceptable for a simple read tool.

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, front-loaded with the action verb, with no redundant or extraneous content. Every word contributes to the core purpose.

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?

While the tool is simple and an output schema exists, the description is incomplete for invocation because it does not explain the parameters at all, especially manifest_path. This leaves a critical gap in the agent's ability to use the tool correctly.

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%, and the description provides zero semantic support for the parameters (skill_filename, manifest_path). It mentions neither parameter nor hints at their roles, so the agent cannot infer meaning beyond the property names themselves.

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 ('project-local overlay skill') with a clarifying parenthetical about domain-specific checklists. The 'project-local' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling get_skill, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 for project-local skills, but it does not explicitly contrast with get_skill or provide when-not-to-use guidance. It lacks direct alternatives or exclusions, though the intent is inferable from the naming.

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