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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: it explains how to consume the output (prefix skill://reconstruct/ and call get_skill) and notes the tool works in clients without MCP resources/read, which is a constraint an agent must know. Minor gap: it doesn't say whether the list is complete or filtered.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and trigger, then the follow-up sequence, then exclusions. The clause about the optional offline scene_reader helper is slightly tangential to the list_skills call itself but still serves routing. Five sentences is dense but each carries routing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description still tells the agent how to act on the returned paths. Combined with zero parameters and full annotation coverage, what remains missing is only edge detail (e.g., whether results are static or filtered).

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 no parameters (0 params, 0 required), which is the baseline-4 case. The description correctly treats the operation as parameter-free and focuses on what to do with the returned paths instead.

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+resource: 'Discover Reconstruct workflow skills', and immediately frames the tool as the entry point when a workflow is unknown. It contrasts cleanly with the sibling get_skill, which is named as the follow-up reader rather than the discovery tool.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('when the task's workflow is unknown') and explicit when-to-load which downstream skill: reconstruct-build for an already selected interface, and inspect/design/verify 'separately only when their distinct task is needed'. This gives the agent both the trigger and the exclusion conditions.

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