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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context by describing what the returned set contains and that skills come from two distinct origins (workspace-written vs. Higgs Hub library/include), which goes beyond the annotations. It omits return shape, ordering, and whether results are paginated, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is listed, followed immediately by the sibling handoff and the trigger conditions. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 parameterless, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: scope, sources of items, routing to get_skill for the actual artifact, and invocation triggers. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The mention of get_skill's SKILL.md form is a usage note rather than parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (skills in this workspace) and enumerates the three sources of those skills: workspace-authored procedures, Higgs Hub library adoptions, and universally-included Higgs Hub content. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_skill, which returns a single installable SKILL.md.

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?

Names the alternative (get_skill) and the condition that selects it, then gives an explicit entry-point trigger: 'Start here if someone asks what Higgs Hub can help them with, or asks to install their workspace's skills.' Both the when and the when-not are present.

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