Load an Edgegap agent skill

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), so the description's job is lighter. It adds meaningful non-schema behavior: 'No API call' tells the agent this is a local content load with no network side effects, and it discloses that SKILL.md is the default file when 'file' is omitted.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the default behavior before the routing rules. The em-dash routing clause is dense but carries real selection information, and the closing 'No API call.' fragment is short and high-value 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 does need to convey what comes back, and it does: a SKILL.md workflow document by default, or a reference/template file when 'file' is set. Combined with the pre-action loading workflow, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only the exact response shape is left implicit.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by explaining what SKILL.md actually is ('the workflow to follow') and by framing 'file' as selecting 'one of its reference documents or templates', which clarifies intent rather than just repeating the parameter names.

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 verb+resource ('Load one Edgegap agent skill') and precisely defines the default payload (SKILL.md, 'the workflow to follow') versus the alternate payload selected by the 'file' parameter. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling edgegap_list_skills, which enumerates rather than loads 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?

It gives explicit routing guidance: load the matching skill before acting on a game project, with a concrete mapping (edgegap-unity for Unity, edgegap-unreal for Unreal Engine, edgegap otherwise) and the instruction to fetch references/templates as they are reached. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' clause or a direct pointer to edgegap_list_skills as the discovery step, 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.