load_skill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the return is markdown content or an error message, but does not mention permissions, side effects, or latency. For a read tool, this is minimal.

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 front-loads the purpose but includes a lengthy list of available skills and a docstring. It could be more concise by moving the skill list elsewhere, but overall it is not overly long.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one string param, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use, and the param. However, it only lists one skill, leaving other possible values undocumented.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It includes a param docstring: 'The name of the skill to load (see the list above).' It lists one skill example but does not enumerate all possible values, leaving ambiguity.

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 'Loads the full content of a bundled skill guide by name.' It uses a specific verb (loads) and resource (skill guide), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which deal with skills.

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 explicitly says to use this tool 'to read the step-by-step instructions for a specific skill.' It lists one available skill (custom-code) with context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, though no sibling tool serves this purpose.

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