skill

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions loading a skill to get instructions, implying a read operation, but doesn't specify if this requires authentication, has side effects, or how it handles errors (e.g., if the skill doesn't exist). The note about no skills being available hints at potential limitations but lacks detail on behavior like return formats or failure modes.

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 brief with two sentences, but the second sentence ('No skills are currently available') is extraneous and doesn't earn its place by adding value to tool understanding—it's more of a runtime note. This reduces efficiency, though the overall structure is simple and not overly verbose.

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 complexity (a single parameter with no output schema and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'detailed instructions' entail, how results are returned, or error handling. Without annotations or output schema, more context is needed for effective use, making this inadequate for a tool that interacts with skills.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with a single required parameter 'name' described as 'The name of the skill to load'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as examples of skill names or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 states the tool 'loads a skill to get detailed instructions for a specific task', which provides a verb ('load') and resource ('skill') with a purpose ('get detailed instructions'). However, it doesn't clearly differentiate from siblings like 'list_skills', 'skill_resource', or 'skill_script', making the scope somewhat vague. The phrase 'No skills are currently available' adds confusion about current functionality rather than clarifying 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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'list_skills' (which might list available skills) or 'skill_resource' (which might handle skill resources), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. The statement about no skills being available is informational but doesn't serve as usage guidance.

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