skill_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation and the content is a playbook, but nothing is said about required permissions, behavior when the name is unknown, or whether the payload is cached/static versus dynamic.

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 lean sentence with the resource and lookup key front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though there is little substance to be concise about.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the tool is a simple one-parameter lookup. Still, the description omits how names are discovered and what happens on a miss, which are the two things an agent needs to use it reliably.

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 single 'name' parameter has no title or description, so the description must compensate. 'By name' only weakly signals that the value is a skill identifier; the expected format (exact slug vs. display title vs. fuzzy match) is left unspecified.

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?

Specific verb ('Read') plus resource ('food chemistry skill/playbook') and the lookup key ('by name'). An agent can distinguish it from lookup_food or get_food_chemistry, though it never explicitly contrasts with the sibling skills_list that presumably enumerates the valid names.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to skills_list as the source of valid names. The agent must infer that it should first list skills before reading one.

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