load_skill_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what the tool does but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific permissions, what happens if the skills directory is empty, or what format the metadata is returned in. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the purpose clearly with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the essential information. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and the description lacks behavioral details, it's incomplete. The agent knows what the tool does but not how it behaves (e.g., read-only vs. mutation, error handling, return format). For a tool that likely returns data, the absence of output schema or description of return values is a significant gap.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools. No additional parameter context is required or provided.

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 metadata') and resource ('all available skills from the skills directory'), specifying what fields are included ('name and description'). It distinguishes from 'load_skill' (which likely loads skill content rather than metadata) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'read_reference_file' or 'run_shell_command'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for getting skill metadata, there's no mention of when to use this versus 'load_skill' (which might load the skill itself) or other siblings. The agent must infer usage from tool names alone.

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