skill_load

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

Despite lacking annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: it handles multiple skills, preserves order, and is all-or-nothing. It does not elaborate on error behavior or side effects beyond atomicity, but the key traits are well-covered.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the verb, resource, and key constraints without any filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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 one parameter and an output schema, the description covers essential context: bulk loading, ordering, and atomicity. It does not clarify what 'complete' skills means or what the load operation does with existing context, but the overall behavior is sufficiently defined.

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 schema has one parameter (names) with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by implying that names specifies the skills to load and that array order is significant ('ordered'). It does not explicitly name the parameter, but the mapping is clear from context.

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 clearly identifies the action (load), the resource (several complete skills), and distinctive traits (ordered, all-or-nothing), distinguishing it from sibling tools like skill_read or skill_list.

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 implies the use case: when multiple skills need to be loaded together atomically. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using skill_read for a single skill.

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