Load a Vobiz skill

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: 'Read-only, no API call' clarifies this is a local content lookup with no network side effects, and it discloses the return payload shape. It does not cover edge cases such as an unmatched or empty section value, so it is good but not exhaustive.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the tool's output purpose, then the optional parameter nuance and the safety note. No filler and nothing buried.

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 correctly carries the burden by describing what is returned (endpoints, request shapes, VobizXML rules, pitfalls), and it explains the section-filtering behavior. Minor gaps exist around invalid/empty section handling, but an agent has enough to invoke it 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 coverage is 100%: the `name` enum and the `section` prefix-match semantics are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that `section` loads one `##` section and that names come from list_vobiz_skills, which is marginally useful cross-tool context but adds little beyond the schema baseline.

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 ('Return the instructions of one Vobiz Agent Skill') and immediately enumerates the content type (endpoints, request shapes, VobizXML rules, pitfalls). It also contrasts with list_vobiz_skills by noting where skill names come from, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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 gives clear usage context: use `section` to fetch a single `##` section, and names list_vobiz_skills as the source of valid names. It stops short of an explicit when/when-not rule (e.g. 'call list_vobiz_skills first, then load only the skill you need'), so it is strong context but not full routing guidance.

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