skill_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load, and it does disclose a genuine behavioral trait: fetching from GitHub with a local fallback. However, it omits failure behavior (what happens if the skill is not found), any auth or rate-limit concerns implied by a remote fetch, and whether the result is cached.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the argument note is compact. Slight waste in the 'Args:' block, which largely restates the single required parameter, but overall tight.

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 not be explained. The description covers source and fallback adequately, but for a remote-load read tool with no annotations it leaves error/not-found behavior and discovery workflow unspecified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single 'name' parameter. It provides concrete example values ('ux-triage', 'setup-clarity-token', 'frustration-audit') that convey the naming convention, but no format rules, case sensitivity, or allowed character set.

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+resource (Load a dynamic skill playbook) plus the source mechanism (GitHub with local fallback), which is concrete. It is distinguishable from the sibling skills_list (which presumably enumerates rather than loads), though it doesn't name that sibling explicitly.

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 is given. It never says to call skills_list first to discover valid names, nor when this differs from related siblings like get_ux_insights or doctor. Usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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