load_skill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the failure behavior: a missing skill returns 'an error message listing available skills' rather than failing opaquely, and the success payload is markdown content. It does not explicitly state the read-only/idempotent nature of the call, leaving a small gap for an unannotated tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the trailing ':param'/':returns' lines are compact. The Available skills entries are long, but each clause maps to a real routing decision, so the length is largely earned rather than filler.

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 supplies the return contract ('the skill's markdown content, or an error message listing available skills if not found'). Combined with the enumerated valid values and per-skill triggers, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% (the schema only says 'Skill Name'), so the description must compensate. It does so by defining the parameter's meaning and enumerating the valid values ('custom-code', 'evaluation'), effectively supplying the enum the schema lacks. It stops short of describing naming/case conventions.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Loads the full content of a bundled skill guide by name') and the second clarifies the scope ('step-by-step instructions for a specific skill supported by this server'). This is clearly distinguishable from every sibling tool, which are API/deployment/pipeline operations rather than knowledge retrieval.

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 tells the agent when to use the tool ('to read the step-by-step instructions for a specific skill'), and the Available skills list gives per-skill trigger conditions ('Use this skill whenever writing, generating, reviewing, or fixing a Haystack custom component...', 'Use this skill before writing, reviewing or fixing an Evaluator...'). The conditions that select each argument value are spelled out rather than inferred.

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