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

Beyond the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive annotations, it discloses the returned content and format and explains the intended one-time retrieval behavior within a workflow. It does not cover failure behavior for an invalid or stale skill name, but the operational context is otherwise useful.

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 triggers and purpose are front-loaded, and the workflow guidance is easy to follow. However, the requirement to call directory_skill_list first is stated twice, creating noticeable redundancy in an otherwise efficient description.

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 this single-parameter retrieval tool, the description supplies the prerequisite, selection rule, invocation frequency, downstream action, and a concrete example. Because there is no output schema, its explanation of the returned markdown methodology is especially valuable and makes the definition sufficiently complete.

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 already fully documents name, including its kebab-case format, source, and example. The description adds the selection rule of choosing the single skill matching the user's request, although its remaining parameter guidance largely repeats the schema.

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 that the tool loads the full methodology body for one directory skill, including its markdown format and step-by-step contents. It distinguishes this retrieval role from directory_skill_list, which discovers names, and directory_search, which applies the loaded methodology.

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?

It gives explicit user-request triggers, requires directory_skill_list first, explains how to select the matching skill, and identifies directory_search as the next step. The instruction to read once and not re-fetch on every step also provides clear when-not guidance.

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