Load Skill

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: there is no output schema, so describing the returned SKILL.md payload (guidance, examples, file references) tells the agent what it will get. It stops short of noting any side effects or preconditions for skill existence.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and return content, then the imperative usage block. The emphasis block is somewhat repetitive ('NEVER just announce...' plus 'BLOCKING REQUIREMENT'), but this redundancy is functional for steering agent behavior rather than filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately covers the return payload, the parameter source, and the invocation timing an agent needs. What remains thin is failure behavior (e.g., unknown skill name), which is not addressed.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100% ('Skill name from <available_skills>'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no format or matching guidance beyond implying the skill must be relevant, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Load a skill's full instructions') and immediately clarifies the return value ('complete SKILL.md content with step-by-step guidance, examples, and file references'). This clearly distinguishes it from the skill-config-* and skill-display-* siblings, which manage configuration rather than executing/loading skills.

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?

Gives decisive when-to-use guidance: invoke immediately when a skill is relevant to the user's task, and explicitly forbids merely announcing a skill without calling the tool. It does not name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the siblings are not substitutes for loading, so the missing piece is minor.

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