Load Kilo-Kit Skill

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the burden is lighter. The description adds one useful behavioral trait, fuzzy alias matching, but omits the sessionId side effect of registering skill delivery and does not say what happens when a skill name does not resolve. Adequate with annotations, but thin on the delivery mechanics.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the alias capability immediately after; nothing is padded. The parenthetical alias list is somewhat redundant with the schema examples for the skill parameter, which keeps it from a 5.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should say more about what comes back. It never mentions the markdown/json format choice, whether output is truncated by maxChars, or the failure mode for an unknown skill, so an agent cannot predict the response shape from the description alone.

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 description coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents skill, category, maxChars, and sessionId. The description's alias examples duplicate the examples already present in the skill parameter's schema description, and it says nothing about the format enum or maxChars truncation behavior. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 and resource ('Load a Kilo-Kit skill') with the retrieval keys ('by name or category/skill'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns a skill, not metadata about one. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from the sibling kilo_search_skills, leaving the retrieval-vs-discovery boundary to inference.

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 gives alias examples but no when-to-use guidance: it never says when to load a skill directly versus searching first with kilo_search_skills, nor whether a search is a prerequisite when the exact name is unknown. There are no exclusions or preconditions stated.

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