list_skills

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and scope, without mentioning that it is a read-only operation, what data it returns, or any pagination/ordering behavior. This is minimal and does not add meaningful behavioral context beyond the verb 'list'.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and resource. It avoids redundancy and every word contributes meaningful information.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks details about the return format, potential pagination, or whether it lists all skills or only those accessible to the user. This leaves some gaps for the agent's understanding of the full context.

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 100% for the single optional parameter workspace_id, which already provides a clear explanation. The description does not add extra parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 'List skills available in the workspace' uses a specific verb ('list') and a clear resource ('skills') with a scope ('workspace'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_skill (single skill) and list_agent_skills (skills attached to an agent), so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 usage by stating the workspace scope, but it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_skill or list_agent_skills. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so guidance is only implicit.

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