read_skill

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It only states what is read, but doesn't disclose behavior on missing names, errors, or side effects, leaving the agent to infer basic read semantics.

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?

A single concise sentence efficiently conveys the purpose and key constraint, with no redundant wording.

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 operation, the description is adequate, but it lacks detail on edge cases (e.g., missing skill, empty body) and does not clarify what 'opt-in' entails in practice.

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 provides no description for 'name', and the tool description only says 'explicit skill name' without clarifying format, case sensitivity, or expected values. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but only minimally does.

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 the full SKILL.md body by explicit skill name, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from leaner alternatives, though it doesn't name them 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?

The phrase 'opt-in; other tools stay lean' implicitly suggests using this when full contents are needed, but it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools or specify conditions for choosing this over list_skills or others.

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