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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses key traits such as returning only enabled skills, omitting bodies, and excluding two catalogue skills, but it does not explicitly state read-only nature or permission requirements.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds distinct value: scope, return fields plus alternative, and catalogue exclusions plus alternatives. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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 simple list operation, empty parameter schema, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains inclusions, exclusions, return fields, and where to go for omitted or related functionality.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description appropriately does not spend space on parameter details.

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 and resource ('Lists the skills this account can use') and clearly scopes it to the catalogue plus user-owned skills. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming `get_skill`, `activate`, and `start_debate` in the context of specific alternatives or exclusions.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to alternatives: call `get_skill(slug)` to read and apply a skill, and notes that `team` and `debate` are served by `activate` and `start_debate` respectively. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance without requiring inference.

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