read_skill

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It communicates that the tool loads a reference into context, implying a read-only action, and that it is preparatory rather than an actual API call. However, it does not describe what the agent should expect afterward—e.g., whether documentation is returned, how it is formatted, or whether context is replaced or appended.

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 convey both function and usage guidance with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the use case is stated immediately, making the description easy to process.

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 low-complexity, two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does, its purpose, and its place in the workflow relative to API calls. It could be improved by explicitly addressing the sibling list_skills or clarifying the absence of side effects, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 input schema already documents both parameters with full coverage, including an enum and examples. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond tying the concepts of 'skill' and 'resource' to the corresponding parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb ('Loads') and resource ('a skill or resource reference') and adds purpose ('to learn API patterns before making calls'). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from list_skills, but the purpose clause makes the distinction from the *api_call siblings reasonably clear.

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 second sentence gives explicit usage context: use this before making calls to learn API patterns. It does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives like list_skills, but the timing and purpose are clear enough for an agent to select it over the API-call siblings.

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