Get skill

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by stating 'free' (cost context) and specifying that it loads the 'full SKILL.md workflow instructions', which clarifies what the tool returns. This goes slightly beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two concise sentences, both front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately after, the prerequisite and usage guidance. No redundant phrasing or filler; every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description is complete. It names the source (list_skills), what is returned (full SKILL.md instructions), the cost (free), and how to use the result. No output schema exists, and the description sufficiently covers what an agent needs to know.

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% and the only parameter 'name' already has a descriptive schema entry ('bundle name from list_skills, e.g. hermoso-generate'). The description adds no additional parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Load') and a specific resource ('bundled skill's full SKILL.md workflow instructions'), and it clearly differentiates from the sibling list_skills by indicating this tool loads the instructions rather than just listing names. It also notes it is read-only and free, which reinforces the 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 explicitly says the name comes 'from list_skills', establishing a prerequisite and guiding the agent to call list_skills first. It then instructs to 'Follow the loaded instructions to run that workflow with the other tools', explaining how to use the result, which is clear and actionable.

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