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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds value beyond them by explaining that include_disabled defaults to true and that only metadata is returned. It also clarifies that project_id scopes results to one project. No contradiction with 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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds workflow guidance, parameter details, and a clear pointer to get_skill. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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's simplicity, two optional parameters, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs. It even explains the broader skills-first workflow, making it more complete than expected.

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 bears the burden of explaining parameters. It provides meaningful semantics for both: project_id filters to one project's skills, and include_disabled defaults to true. This is sufficient for an agent to understand each parameter's role, though it could be slightly more explicit about the effect of setting include_disabled to false.

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') and resource ('the user's saved skills') and enumerates the returned fields: name, description, scope, enabled. It also distinguishes itself from get_skill by noting it returns metadata only and that the full body is available via get_skill.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: before a non-trivial or multi-step task, call this first to check for a saved procedure. It also names the alternative tool (get_skill) and the follow-up action, making the decision path very clear.

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