skill_resource_load

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the key behavioral traits of ordering and all-or-nothing atomicity, which is valuable. However, it does not mention potential side effects, permissions, or what happens on partial failure beyond the atomic guarantee, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and includes no filler. Every phrase adds meaning, making it an example of efficient specification.

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?

While there is an output schema (so return values need not be described), the description leaves out important context such as how to construct a valid request, the meaning of 'supporting resources,' and any constraints like maximum number of resources. It is sufficient for a simple tool but not fully self-contained.

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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the 'requests' parameter or its fields. It only hints at multiplicity with 'several,' but provides no guidance on skill_name or resource_path. The schema itself includes a brief items description, but the main description adds minimal value.

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 states the action (load), the resource (supporting resources), and distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'several' and 'ordered all-or-nothing,' which differentiates it from single-resource loaders like skill_read_resource. However, 'supporting resources' is somewhat vague without context.

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 use when needing to load multiple resources atomically, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like skill_read_resource for a single resource. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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