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

The description clarifies that archived skills are excluded by default and only included if include_archived is true for owned skills. This adds detail beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It also explains the response format and pagination cursor. No contradictions 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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, then follows with necessary details about pagination and archived skills. Every sentence adds value 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 presence of an output schema and six parameters (none required), the description covers pagination, archived inclusion, and filter scope. It omits some edge cases (e.g., behavior when no skills exist), but overall sufficiently completes the specification.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning for parameters (e.g., it doesn't elaborate on the 'filter' enum beyond what's in schema). The response structure explanation is relevant but not parameter-specific.

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 tool lists skills that are owned or shared, distinct from search_skills and list_skill_grants among siblings. It specifies the resource ('skills') and scope ('you own or shared'), making the purpose precise.

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 includes pagination instructions and mentions filtering via parameters, but does not explicitly differentiate when to use list_skills versus alternatives like search_skills or list_skill_grants. Usage context is implied but not formally guided.

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