activate_skill

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

Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the immediate effects (loading instructions, listing files) but does not mention any state changes, prerequisites, or side effects of activation. The description is accurate but incomplete.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence communicates the core action and its two immediate outcomes. No wasted words.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple tool with an output schema available. It captures the essential behavior and is not missing critical context, though it could mention how project_roots interacts with activation.

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 input schema already documents all parameters with clear descriptions, including the note that 'name' comes from list_skills. The description merely says 'by name,' adding no new semantic value. Baseline 3 for full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Activate') and resource ('skill'), and clarifies the outcome: loading instructions and listing supporting files. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_skills (which only lists skills) and read_skill_file (which reads specific files).

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 use after selecting a skill but never explicitly states when to use this versus list_skills or read_skill_file. No exclusions are given; the reader must infer that activation is a higher-level operation.

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