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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behavioral aspects: it identifies the output format (records with specific fields), clarifies that results are compiled from the workspace's wiki, and explains the empty-list behavior with a remedy (run a compile). This goes beyond minimal and gives actionable insight.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, output details, and a note on empty results. No fluff or redundancy—textbook efficiency.

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 (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and how to handle empty results. An agent can confidently invoke it without further clarification.

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 has no parameters, so there is no schema to describe. The description still adds value by explaining the output structure (fields like name, title, description) and how to proceed with results (feed name to get_skill), which is helpful context even though no parameters exist.

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 compiled skills (recurring procedures) in the key's workspace, identifying the resource and action with specificity. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_skill (which retrieves full markdown) and other list tools (e.g., list_pages) by focusing on compiled skills from the wiki.

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 provides context on when to use it (to view compiled skills) and hints at alternatives (e.g., get_skill for full markdown, running a compile if empty). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare with related tools like list_pages or search_wiki, but the context is sufficient for basic differentiation.

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