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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the output scope (skills and their phases) and clarifies that reading a full skill happens via a separate resource. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether auth is needed, or what the response shape looks like.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every phrase adds value. The first sentence states purpose and output; the second gives an actionable pointer to related functionality without filler.

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?

This is a simple, parameterless listing tool, and the description covers what is listed and where to go for full skill content. It does not need to explain return values since there is no output schema. Slight gap: it could explicitly distinguish itself from the many sibling 'list_*' tools, but the phase detail already does this implicitly.

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, and the schema coverage is 100%. The baseline for no parameters is 4; the description appropriately focuses on the tool's behavior rather than inventing parameter details that do not 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 uses a specific verb ('List'), names the resource ('guidance Skills'), scopes it to the server, and specifies the distinguishing property ('with the phase each serves'). It is easily differentiated from sibling tools like list_operations or list_phases.

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 clearly conveys that this tool is for listing skills, and the second sentence points to the appropriate mechanism for reading a skill's full content via a resource URI. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer another sibling list tool (e.g., list_phases) over this one.

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