use_skill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the most important non-obvious trait: skills are text only and nothing in them is executed, which tells the agent the load is a safe read. It does not cover error behavior for an invalid name or what exactly is returned (full instruction text vs. a reference), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with the file semantics and the safety caveat following in priority order. No sentence is redundant.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the optional file modifier, and the safety profile, which is close to sufficient. It still leaves the return content and not-found behavior unexplained, which matters for a tool whose whole job is pulling text into context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'file' well — one of the extra text files the skill lists, such as references or templates — but 'name' is only implied via the find_skills reference rather than stated as the skill identifier from that listing.

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 and resource ('Load a skill's instructions') and ties it to the sibling tool that supplies the skill name (find_skills), so an agent can distinguish discovery from loading. It stops short of an explicit contrast statement such as 'use find_skills to discover, use_skill to load', but the pairing is clear.

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 parenthetical '(from find_skills)' implies a prerequisite workflow: find a skill first, then load it here. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or statement about what happens if the name is unknown, so usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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