list_antigravity_skills

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails it. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether the result is paginated or size-limited, or what an agent should expect from a large skill repository; only the implicit 'list' verb suggests safety.

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 definition is a single compact sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded, so it is easy to scan. The trailing parenthetical slightly duplicates what the schema enum already provides, but it is not wasteful enough to hurt readability.

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?

This is a simple zero-required-parameter list tool, so the description's brevity is defensible. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum indicate the shape or scale of what comes back (e.g., that it returns name/description per skill) to help the agent plan its next call.

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 coverage is 100% and the single `category` parameter has an enum with a documented default, so the schema already fully explains the input. The description's parenthetical ('Custom, Builtin, & Trading-Quantitative') merely echoes enum values and adds no new meaning such as filtering behavior or defaults.

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 names a specific verb ('Dapatkan' / get) and resource ('daftar seluruh keahlian/Skills') and enumerates the source categories, so the agent knows it retrieves a complete skill listing. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as search_skills or get_skill_guide, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between 'list all' and 'search'.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus search_skills or get_skill_guide, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The word 'seluruh' (entire) hints at an unfiltered listing, but this is inference rather than guidance.

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