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. It states that the tool loads full instructions, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose any edge cases, errors, or prerequisites beyond referencing `search`. This meets the minimum threshold but lacks deeper behavioral 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 a single, clear sentence with no filler or redundant information. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it highly concise and structurally effective.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description lacks explicit parameter clarification and does not explain the role of the loaded instructions (e.g., how they relate to `call_tool`). Given the sibling tools and output schema, more context about the returned instructions could enhance completeness, but the description is minimally adequate.

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 has zero description coverage for the single 'name' parameter. The description only indirectly implies that 'name' refers to a skill found via search, but it does not explicitly define the content or format of the parameter, nor state that it should be the exact name from search results.

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 a specific action ('Load the full instructions') on a specific resource ('a Skill'), and references the sibling tool 'search' to distinguish its role from searching. It directly addresses what the tool does and how it fits with related tools.

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 phrasing 'found via `search`' clearly implies the intended workflow: first use `search`, then `use_skill` to load details. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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