Load a skill's full instructions and file manifest to access its exact setup. Referenced files stay separate—read them by name for precise execution.
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.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it returns instructions verbatim, includes a manifest of bundled files, and does not inline referenced files. These details align with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint while providing actionable expectations the annotations alone don't convey.
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 filler: the core action is stated first, and the important boundary condition (files are not inlined) follows immediately. Every word earns its place and the structure makes the key caveat highly visible.
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 tool with one required parameter, no output schema, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description fully covers what the tool returns and its key limitation. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and decide between skill_load and skill_file.
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% and the single parameter already has a clear description ('exactly as skill_list reports it'), so the tool description doesn't need to add much. The phrase 'one skill's' reinforces singular scope but adds no new semantic information beyond the schema.
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 names a specific action ('Load one skill's SKILL.md instructions verbatim') and resource (a skill plus its bundle manifest), and it explicitly differentiates the tool from skill_file by noting referenced files are not inlined. The purpose is immediately clear and distinct from sibling 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 description gives explicit routing guidance: use skill_load for the main SKILL.md and manifest, and switch to skill_file when you need referenced files by name. The parameter schema reinforces the workflow by saying the name must match exactly what skill_list reports, which tells the agent to list first if unsure.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.