forge_skill

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only retrieval behavior by saying 'Returns... content', but it does not disclose behavior for missing skills, error handling, or whether applying the skill has side effects.

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 description is one short, purposeful sentence with no filler. It front-loads the return value and immediately states the intended usage context.

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 retrieval tool with one well-documented parameter, the description provides enough context to call it correctly: it names the input, states the output, and explains why the agent would use it. It does not describe output format, but for SKILL.md content this is a minor omission.

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 single parameter 'name' is fully described in the schema as 'Skill name (a folder in the arsenal)', giving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter details, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns'), a specific resource ('SKILL.md content of a skill'), and the intended purpose ('load and apply it in the current phase'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like forge_skills, which likely lists skills, and forge_complete_phase, which advances phases.

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 implies when to use it: when you need a skill's SKILL.md content to apply it in the current phase. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it relates to alternatives such as forge_skills for finding skills.

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