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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that a skill may carry FILES enumerated by `resources`, that partial loads are possible, and that a nonexistent skill/section/resource returns the valid names instead of erroring. It stops short of describing the returned format (markdown? structured?), which is the remaining gap.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then timing guidance, then the section/resource mechanics, then error behavior — a sensible priority order. Slightly prose-heavy with em-dash clauses, but nearly every sentence carries distinct information.

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 three-parameter, annotation-free, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what is loaded, when, how to narrow it, and what happens on a miss. Only the shape of the returned content is unstated, which is a minor omission given no output schema exists.

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 already 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds real semantics: it ties `section` to headings for partial loads and explains that `resource` values come from the skill's own `resources` listing. That cross-parameter relationship is not in the schema itself.

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+object ('Load one of your skills: the full instructions for doing something') and clarifies it applies to the skill the turn only announced by name, which disambiguates it from any sibling that merely names skills. No sibling in the list does skill loading, so no confusion is possible.

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?

Gives explicit ordering guidance ('Do it BEFORE working in a skill's area rather than after') plus the reasoning why the announcement is insufficient ('the announcement says what a skill is for, and the skill itself says how'). An agent knows exactly when to call it and what it gains by calling it early.

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