skill_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Fetch' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but it says nothing about failure behavior for unknown names, caching, or whether skill content is static. An output schema exists, so return-value structure needn't be explained here.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the parameter detail appended; the skills_list pointer earns its place by telling the agent how to obtain valid inputs. No filler.

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?

A single-parameter read tool with an output schema and a documented way to find valid names is well covered. The only real gap is unstated error behavior on an invalid name, which is minor given the existing schema and examples.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it names the parameter's meaning and supplies two concrete example values plus a pointer to skills_list() for the full set. It stops short of stating whether names are exact-match or case-sensitive.

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 (fetch) and resource (guidance and analytical playbooks for Plausible Analytics) with the selection key (by name). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from skills_list, which enumerates available skills rather than returning content.

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 gives clear operating context and routes the agent to the sibling tool skills_list() to discover valid names. It does not state explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use, but for a simple lookup-by-name tool the routing hint is the relevant guidance.

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