Use Skill

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'load' and supporting resources, with no mention of side effects, state changes, errors, or prerequisites. The statement 'No skills are available' also undercuts the described behavior and makes the tool's actual effect unclear.

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 first two sentences are concise and front-loaded with the core purpose and usage. The third sentence, 'No skills are available,' is extraneous, confusing, and contradicts the rest of the description, preventing a higher score.

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 one-parameter tool an output schema may cover return values, but the description still misses basic behavioral context such as what loading entails or what happens if no skill matches. The contradictory claim that no skills are available makes the tool's intended invocation unclear.

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 schema provides zero description coverage for the single 'name' parameter. The description adds value by calling it a 'qualified name', but it never explains what qualifies as qualified or provides an example, so the compensation is only partial.

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 states a specific action ('Load a skill and its supporting resources') and identifies the resource clearly, which distinguishes it from siblings like write_skill or migrate_skill. However, the closing line 'No skills are available' muddles the purpose by implying the tool has nothing to load.

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?

It gives explicit usage context: use a matching skill before starting a task and load it with use_skill by its qualified name. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are sufficiently different that no direct comparison is necessary.

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