Retrieve a named skill's SKILL.md instructions and bundled file manifest so agents can follow its workflow and read referenced files by name with skill_file.
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?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-open-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing exactly what is returned — verbatim instructions plus a manifest — and what is deliberately withheld (referenced file contents).
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, zero filler, with the core return contract front-loaded and the skill_file handoff immediately after. Every clause carries information an agent needs.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately by naming the two payload components and the non-inlined rule. It stops short of describing manifest structure, but that is a minor gap for a simple loader.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully described in the schema, including that the name must match skill_list output. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Load one skill's SKILL.md instructions') and defines the payload precisely (verbatim instructions plus a bundled-file manifest). It implicitly separates itself from skill_file by noting referenced files are not inlined.
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 an explicit boundary condition: bundled files are not inlined, so the agent must use skill_file to read them by name. It does not spell out that skill_list should run first, though the parameter description ties the name to skill_list output.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.