Load Skill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the call is 'expensive (context-heavy)' and that it returns 'complete SKILL.md plus optional supporting files', which are useful behavioral traits beyond the basic operation. However, it does not cover error handling or define 'supporting files' in detail, so a small gap remains.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and gives examples; the second delivers usage guidance. Perfectly sized and 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?

For a simple load tool with 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main return value, usage context, and parameter hints. The omission of 'max_bytes' semantics is the primary gap, but overall the description is quite complete for its complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides valuable examples for 'id' and hints at 'include_supporting_files' via 'optional supporting files', but 'max_bytes' is left unexplained. This partial compensation falls short of fully documenting all parameters.

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 'Load' with a clear resource ('one skill by id') and gives concrete examples. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing 'FULL content' and the requirement of a specific skill id, clearly separating it from listing/searching.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when you have decided to use a specific skill and need its full instructions') and when not to, with alternatives named ('prefer list_skills/search_skills first'). This is textbook usage guidance.

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