Read a skill

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so this is clearly a safe, non-mutating read operation. The description adds only 'full content' and 'by name', which does not meaningfully expand beyond the annotations or the basic nature of the tool, but it does not contradict them.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with the source context 'from skills_list' used efficiently. There is no wasted wording or redundant information.

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 with strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains what value is returned ('full content') and the source of the name, though it does not explicitly describe error behavior for unknown skill names or the exact content format. Given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage, this is a minor gap.

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 schema provides only a string parameter named 'name' with 0% description coverage, so the description must carry the meaning. The phrase 'by name' and '(from skills_list)' clarify that the parameter is a skill name sourced from skills_list, but the description does not specify format, case sensitivity, or how the name should be validated.

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 states a specific verb-resource relationship: fetch the full content of one skill by name. It also distinguishes the tool from the sibling skills_list by emphasizing 'full content' and 'one skill', making its role clear.

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 phrase 'from skills_list' provides clear context that the skill name comes from the list returned by skills_list, implying skills_list should be used together. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for other scenarios, but the context is sufficient for a simple read operation.

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