list_agent_skills

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the purpose and gives no additional behavioral context such as read-only nature, required permissions, pagination, or output format. 'List' implies a safe read, but the description adds no extra transparency.

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?

A single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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, the description is minimally viable: it states what is listed and the agent association. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details about return shape, pagination, or error conditions, leaving some gap for a fully informed agent.

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 schema documents only workspace_id, and the description does not explicitly state that 'id' refers to the agent ID. However, the phrase 'attached to an agent' implies the id identifies an agent, adding some meaning beyond the bare schema. With 50% coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves ambiguity.

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' and a clear resource: 'skills attached to an agent'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'list_skills', which likely lists all skills globally.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_skills' or when combined with 'attach_skill_to_agent'/'detach_skill_from_agent'. It lacks any exclusions or context about selecting this over other list tools.

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