load_skill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (markdown content) and error behavior (message listing available skills if not found), which gives useful behavioral expectations. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but for a read-only skill loader this is adequate.

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 well-structured with an opening definition, usage sentence, bulleted skill list, and param/returns sections. The custom-code skill explanation is somewhat lengthy but provides valuable context, earning its place. No wasted words overall.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it covers purpose, when to use, parameter semantics, return value, and error handling. The inclusion of the available skill list makes it self-contained. No gaps remain.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explicitly states the parameter meaning ('The name of the skill to load') and provides an enumerated list of valid values (custom-code), effectively serving as an inline enum. This gives the agent everything needed to populate skill_name correctly.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Loads the full content of a bundled skill guide by name.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_template or search_templates by focusing on skill guides rather than templates or generic docs. The additional detail about available skills further clarifies its purpose.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this tool to read the step-by-step instructions for a specific skill supported by this server,' providing clear context for when to invoke it. It also lists a concrete skill with trigger scenarios, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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