skills_get_options

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the return values (config_schema, variants, dependencies, limitations) and the optional nature. No hidden behaviors; it accurately represents a read-only configuration retrieval tool.

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 clear sentences plus a bulleted list of return types. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary purpose and usage conditions.

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?

Given the simple parameter set and existence of an output schema, the description covers the use case, conditions, and return schema adequately. It is complete for an agent to understand when and how to use the tool.

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 description does not elaborate on the 'skill_id' parameter despite 0% schema description coverage. While the parameter name and context imply its role, the description misses an opportunity to add value beyond 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 the verb 'load' and the resource 'config schema, variants, and constraints for a skill.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like skills_get_body by positioning as an optional step, making purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit conditions for calling are given (user customization request or skills_get_body mentions options) and a clear 'do not call by default' instruction. This provides excellent when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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