agent-skill-loader

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the return format ('JSON list') and the tool's purpose, but lacks details on potential behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or whether the list is cached/live. The description doesn't contradict any annotations (none exist), but could provide more operational context.

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 two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by clear usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without waste, making it efficient and well-structured for an AI agent.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and the return format. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail on behavioral aspects like error cases or performance characteristics, slightly limiting completeness.

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 appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and usage without redundant parameter details. A baseline of 4 is applied since there are no parameters to document, and the description adds value by explaining the tool's role.

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 specific action ('Returns a JSON list') and resource ('all available skills'), including what information is returned ('names, descriptions, and source directories'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'read_skill' (which reads a specific skill) and 'install_skill' (which installs skills) by focusing on discovery of all available skills.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to discover what skills are available before reading or installing them.' This provides clear guidance on its purpose relative to alternatives like 'read_skill' and 'install_skill', making it evident this is for initial discovery rather than specific operations.

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