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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does add meaningful behavior—only the latest version of each skill is returned, and results are scoped to the caller's org. However, it omits defaults such as include_body=false and limit=50, does not state that it is read-only, and says nothing about response ordering or pagination behavior.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, no filler. It earns its place, though it sacrifices some behavioral detail for brevity.

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?

For a simple list tool with an output schema and mostly documented parameters, the description is largely sufficient. It lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling skill tools, but the org/version scoping plus schema defaults give an agent enough to make a correct call.

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 description coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents tag, offset, and include_body; limit has min/max/default. The description contributes no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema and does not clarify how tag filtering interacts with 'all skills'.

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 the verb 'List' and identifies the resource ('all skills'), adds the version qualifier ('latest version of each') and scope ('caller's org'). This is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like memory_skill_get or memory_skill_set.

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 implies the tool is for enumerating skills in the org, but it never states when to prefer it over memory_skill_get, memory_skill_resolve, or memory_skill_set, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. An agent must infer the use case from the name and the generic list behavior.

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