Read a skill

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and repeatability. The description adds the source dependency (skills_list) but does not disclose other behavioral traits like output length or error handling specifics. The mention of 'guidance on error recovery and effective use' is vague and does not add concrete behavioral context beyond annotations.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and source. The dash adds a note about guidance without bloat. Every word earns its place, with no 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-only tool with one parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description suffices. It tells the agent what it does and where the input comes from. It does not detail error cases or return format, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity and the mention of 'guidance on error recovery' embedded in the description.

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 carries the entire burden. It explicitly states that the 'name' parameter is the skill name and that it should come from skills_list. This adds meaningful meaning beyond the schema's bare 'name' field, though it leaves format specifics (e.g., case sensitivity) unclear.

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 the specific action (Fetch the full content), the resource (one skill), and the source (skills_list). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like skills_list (which lists) and roulette/trending (which are unrelated). The title reinforces the purpose.

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 'by name (from skills_list)' provides clear context that the name should come from the skills_list tool, implying a workflow of listing first then reading. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives; it only implies the dependency on skills_list.

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