skill_read

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by explicitly stating the return structure ('title, description, and playbook steps'), which is not present in the annotations. It also clarifies the dependency on skills_list for ID sourcing, adding behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 highly concise and well-structured, with a brief introductory sentence followed by clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, including the example. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return value structure. The reference to skills_list provides necessary context for the expected workflow. Given the low complexity, nothing further is needed.

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 has no description for skill_id, but the description's Args section compensates well by explaining it as 'The skill id from skills_list' and providing an example ('brand_visibility.md'). This gives the agent concrete guidance on where to obtain the value and its expected format, significantly exceeding the schema's bare type definition.

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 clearly states 'Fetch the full content of one analytical skill (playbook)' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like skills_list (which presumably lists skills) by focusing on fetching a single skill's full content. The phrase 'one analytical skill' also clarifies the singular scope.

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 provides clear usage context by instructing the agent to get the skill_id from skills_list and gives an example ID. It also implies the appropriate workflow (list first, then read). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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