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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool fetches and returns content, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose potential behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., if the skill doesn't exist), performance aspects (e.g., response time or size limits), or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action and resource, and the second adds context about the content's use. There is no wasted text, and it efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy. It could be slightly improved by integrating usage guidance more seamlessly, but it remains concise and well-structured.

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 (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and resource but lacks details on behavioral aspects, error handling, or output format. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to compensate, such as explaining what the returned content includes or potential limitations, making it incomplete for full agent understanding.

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 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'skill_name' well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain format constraints or provide examples beyond the schema's example). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description adds no extra parameter value.

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 action ('fetches and returns') and resource ('full SKILL.md content for a specific skill'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_skills' by focusing on retrieving detailed content rather than listing names, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific but could be more distinct with direct sibling comparison.

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 usage when detailed skill content is needed, such as for learning capabilities, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_skills' for overviews or 'install_skill' for setup. It provides some context ('can be used to learn the skill's capabilities') but lacks clear exclusions or named alternatives, leaving usage somewhat inferred rather than guided.

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