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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'reads only the local inventory and never execu...' adds a specific behavioral guarantee (no execution) and 'stable path order' describes output ordering. However, the description is truncated mid-sentence ('never execu —') and includes unrelated server metadata, reducing clarity. It doesn't contradict annotations.

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 first sentence is concise and front-loaded, but the description then degrades into a truncated fragment ('never execu —') and a block of unrelated MCP server metadata about 'The Wall', 'Rokha's sandbox', and a registry URL. This noise should be removed or moved; it doesn't help the agent call the tool.

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 should explain what the tool returns, but it only says it lists files 'in stable path order' without describing the return format or how `limit`/`cursor` pagination works. The truncated execution note and server metadata further detract from completeness. An agent cannot fully predict the tool's behavior from this definition.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies the required `id` identifies the skill bundle ('in a skill bundle'), but it never explicitly names or explains `id`, `limit`, or `cursor`. The pagination parameters (`limit`, `cursor`) are entirely undocumented in the description, leaving the agent to guess their semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List catalog-bound files in a skill bundle, including scripts and reference documents, in stable path order.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like read_skill_file (which reads a file) and get_skill. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it doesn't fully differentiate.

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 no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives. It only states 'This reads only the local inventory and never execu...' which implies a safe read operation, but doesn't tell the agent when to choose this over read_skill_file or search_skills. The server-level 'Read-shaped tools only' note is about the environment, not usage selection.

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