listSkins

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool 'browses' and is 'useful for finding,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly state whether it's safe, whether it requires authentication, or any rate limits. For a catalog browsing tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds practical usage context. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool, making every word earn its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple catalog browsing with 0 parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains the purpose and usage but misses behavioral details like safety or response format. For a tool with no structured data, it should do more to cover these aspects, leaving room for improvement.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds value by explaining the semantic scope: 'across all heroes' and filtering by 'rarity, event, or collection,' which clarifies what the tool does without parameters. This compensates well for the simple schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Browse entire game skin catalog across all heroes' specifies the verb (browse) and resource (game skin catalog). It distinguishes from siblings like 'getHeroSkins' by emphasizing 'across all heroes' rather than per-hero, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'listItems' which might overlap. The purpose is clear but sibling differentiation could be more explicit.

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 implied usage guidance: 'Useful for finding cosmetics by rarity, event, or collection' suggests when to use it (for broad skin discovery with those filters). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like 'getHeroSkins' for hero-specific skins or 'listItems' for other item types. The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive.

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