Retrieve full design-knowledge skill content by ID, with optional renderer-specific examples for p5, Three.js, GLSL, Canvas2D, or SVG, to guide generative art work.
Load a specific design knowledge skill with full content (Phase 5)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skillId | Yes | ID of the skill to load | |
| renderer | No | Renderer-specific examples (default: p5) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Load... with full content' implies a read operation that returns content, but it does not state side effects, whether loading changes state, permissions, rate limits, or what 'full content' entails.
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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical '(Phase 5)' is cryptic and does not clearly earn its place, but overall it is appropriately concise.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain what a 'skill' is, what 'full content' returns, how renderer selection affects output, or how this relates to sibling discovery tools.
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 100%, so both skillId and renderer are documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 has a clear verb ('Load') and resource ('design knowledge skill') and adds scope with 'specific' and 'full content.' It is distinguishable from list_skills and suggest_skills in spirit, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_skills, suggest_skills, or get_guidelines. The '(Phase 5)' note hints at workflow context but is unexplained and not actionable for an agent choosing among tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.