agent-skill-loader

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns diagnostic information, implying a read-only, non-destructive operation, but doesn't detail behavioral traits like error handling, performance, or specific output format. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and follows with usage guidance, all in two concise sentences with no wasted words. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete for its diagnostic purpose. However, it lacks details on what specific diagnostic info is returned (e.g., format, examples) or any warnings, which could help the agent better interpret results. Without an output schema, more context on returns would be beneficial.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is appropriate, but it could have mentioned if any implicit inputs are required (e.g., context). Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully covers the lack of inputs.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Returns diagnostic information') and resources ('server configuration, search paths, warnings from last scan'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_skills' or 'read_skill', which might also provide information about skills, though the diagnostic focus is distinct.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool ('when skills aren't being found or to verify configuration'), which helps guide the agent. It doesn't specify when not to use it or name explicit alternatives among siblings, but the implied usage is sufficient for effective tool selection.

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