load_skill

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

With no annotations available, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns file contents as text, executes nothing, and reads files. This clearly signals a read-only, safe operation. It could further mention error behavior (e.g., not found), but the provided info is solid.

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?

Two sentences, tightly packed with meaningful content: behavior, return type, safety, and host effect. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the simple tool structure, an output schema exists, and the description covers core behavior and safety, it is mostly complete. It could be improved by explaining how missing files are handled, but that is a minor gap. Overall, it supplies enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 only 33% (only name has a description), so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by mentioning 'skill body, reference, or script file contents', mapping to the three possible loads. However, it does not explain the exact format or relationship of script/reference parameters beyond what dependencies imply.

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 two distinct behaviors: listing skills when name is omitted and loading skill body/reference/script contents when name is provided. The verb 'list' and 'load' are specific and the resource is well-defined, distinguishing it from the bernstein_* siblings.

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 explicitly says 'when name is omitted' versus when a name is provided, giving clear context for both usage modes. It also notes 'executes nothing', implying it is for inspection, not execution, but it does not name alternative tools for execution, so it misses explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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