amem_skill_view

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'Load' implies a read, and the prerequisite sentence discloses ordering, but nothing is said about behavior for an unknown skill name, payload size of a 'full body', or any side effects. Adequate 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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first defines what is fetched, the second constrains when. Front-loaded with the action and zero padding.

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 no-output-schema read tool with fully documented params, the definition covers what is returned (full skill body or inner file) and the ordering constraint. It leaves out failure behavior and whether repeated loads are cheap, which are the only notable gaps.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description adds only the relational nuance that 'file' is a supporting file inside the named skill; it adds no new guidance on 'sessionId' beyond the schema.

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 and resource with scope: 'Load the full body of one skill by name, or a supporting file inside it,' which distinguishes it from amem_skill_list and amem_skill_save. It does not name those siblings explicitly beyond the prerequisite mention, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Explicit gating condition: 'Call this only after amem_skill_list (or the "Relevant skills" section of an amem context packet) shows a skill worth following.' That tells the agent both the prerequisite and the qualifying signal. No explicit when-not case (e.g., don't call for skills already loaded in context) is given.

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