Lists skills from a save file, detailing each skill's ID, name, type, client graph, and animation clip IDs for animated skills.
List the skills defined in a save: id, name, type (instant or animated), the client graph it runs and, for an animated one, the ids of its animation clips.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mapPath | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating the shape of each returned record, which matters because there is no output schema; it stops short of covering pagination, empty results, or ordering.
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 dense sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded followed by the returned fields; there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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 read-only listing tool, the annotations plus the field enumeration make the description largely sufficient. The remaining gap is the unexplained mapPath parameter, which is the only input and is left entirely to inference.
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 0% and the single parameter mapPath is never mentioned in the description. The phrase 'defined in a save' hints that the path selects the save, but nothing clarifies whether mapPath is optional (it is not required), what format it takes, or what happens when it is omitted.
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 gives a specific verb (List) and resource (skills defined in a save) and even enumerates the returned fields (id, name, type, client graph, animation clip ids). This clearly separates it from write siblings like scene_add_skill and from scene_list_creature_skills, which is scoped to creatures rather than the save's skill definitions.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The closest sibling, scene_list_creature_skills, is not mentioned, so an agent must infer the distinction between save-level skills and creature-level skills on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.