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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds unique behavioral details: it reads only the local inventory, never executes files, lists symlinks but cannot read them, and provides stable path order and cursor-based pagination.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately clarifying safety and pagination. Every sentence adds value, and the description avoids jargon or redundant phrasing.

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?

The description conveys the tool's purpose, safety, and pagination, but given no output schema, it does not detail the shape of the returned file list beyond 'catalog-bound files'. It also doesn't clarify the exact id format or how limit interacts with cursor, leaving minor gaps for a straightforward listing tool.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain all parameters. It clarifies that cursor is used via nextCursor for pagination and implies id identifies the skill bundle, but it leaves limit unexplained and does not specify the id's format or relationship to a bundle, making parameter semantics incomplete.

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 states a specific verb (List), resource (catalog-bound files in a skill bundle), and scope (scripts and reference documents, stable path order). It clearly differentiates from sibling read_skill_file and get_skill by focusing on the inventory listing rather than file content or skill metadata.

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 context that this is a safe, read-only operation and advises following nextCursor to browse the whole bundle. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like read_skill_file or get_skill, leaving the agent to infer when listing is preferred over reading or fetching.

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