load_skill

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

No annotations provided. Description states that script content is returned as text and the harness does not execute it, which is good. However, it lacks explicit statements about read-only nature, idempotency, or potential side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Moderately concise with a clear docstring structure. Could be slightly trimmed but is well-organized with sections for args and returns. No unnecessary sentences.

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 an output schema exists, the description adequately covers return values for all modes. It explains the compact index when name is omitted and the JSON structure otherwise. Complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description adds value by explaining name is optional, and reference/script depend on name. Provides examples and clarifies valid filenames. Compensates well for schema gaps.

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?

Description clearly specifies the tool's purpose: discovering skills or loading a named skill's body, reference, or script. It distinguishes between different modes of operation and contrasts with sibling Bernstein tools.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: omit name for index, pass name for full body, reference/script only with name. No explicit when-not-to-use vs siblings, but siblings are clearly different (Bernstein commands).

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