skill_read

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent, so the description adds value by specifying the content is markdown and providing a recovery recommendation. No contradictions, though it doesn't describe behavior on missing/not-found cases, which is acceptable given openWorldHint.

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?

Exactly two sentences with no unnecessary words, direct and to the point, well-structured.

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?

Given it's a simple read operation with openWorldHint and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose and usage. It doesn't elaborate on return structure, but that's not necessary for a basic retrieval tool. The recovery hint adds practical completeness.

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 'name' (0% coverage). The description partially compensates by saying 'by name' and pointing to skills_list for names, but doesn't specify format, case-sensitivity, or other constraints. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 tool reads a specific usage skill by name and distinguishes it from skills_list (which lists skills). The verb 'read' and resource 'usage skill' are explicit.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Read 'interpreting-errors' after any error or empty result to recover.' It also directs users to skills_list for valid names, covering prerequisites and selection.

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