Load 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 valuable context: the tool returns a 'bounded' body (not the full file), and it only works with discovered skills, not arbitrary paths. This clarifies what happens beyond the annotation's implied read-only nature. No contradiction detected.

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 two sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is stated first, followed by the key usage prerequisite. Every word contributes value.

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 6 parameters (only 1 required), the description covers the primary usage context (after opening workspace, referencing inventory) and the key constraint (no arbitrary paths). Since the output is simply the SKILL.md content, no output schema is needed. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating that the return value is the raw SKILL.md text, but it's implied by the name and 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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema (e.g., 'name', 'path', 'source', 'max_bytes'). The description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the general usage note that it operates on inventory. Baseline of 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 clearly states the action ('load'), the resource ('bounded SKILL.md body'), and the scope ('discovered workspace, user, or plugin skill by name'). It explicitly contrasts with arbitrary path access and references the discovery flow (open_current_workspace/open_workspace + skill_inventory), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'read' and 'search'.

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 provides a clear when-to-use instruction: 'use after open_current_workspace/open_workspace shows skill_inventory.' It also states a constraint ('Does not accept arbitrary paths'), implying the proper flow. However, it doesn't explicitly name which sibling tools are alternatives or when not to use it beyond the path restriction, so it's not a full 5.

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