Load a skill's SKILL.md instructions and its bundled file manifest, leaving referenced files separate so you can fetch each by name when needed.
Load one skill's SKILL.md instructions verbatim, plus a manifest of the files it bundles. Referenced files are NOT inlined — read them by name with skill_file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The skill's name, exactly as skill_list reports it. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds critical behavioral detail: content is returned verbatim, a file manifest is included, and referenced files are not inlined. This tells the agent exactly what to expect and how to handle file references.
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 with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the important non-inlining caveat is stated immediately after, making the most critical usage note prominent.
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?
Completely sufficient for a simple, one-parameter read-only tool. The description covers the return contents, the non-inlining behavior, and points to the relevant sibling for file access. No output schema is needed given the verbatim-loading nature.
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 100%, so the parameter 'name' is already well-documented with guidance to use the exact name from skill_list. The tool description adds no further parameter detail, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: loads one skill's SKILL.md instructions verbatim plus a manifest of bundled files. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly noting referenced files are not inlined and should be read via skill_file.
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?
Gives explicit when-to-use context (loading a skill's instructions and manifest) and provides a direct alternative for referenced files: 'read them by name with skill_file.' The input schema further references skill_list for obtaining the exact name, which reinforces routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.