skills_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It indicates a read-only listing operation (no parameters, returns a list), but does not specify details like whether it pulls from a static or dynamic source, or any performance implications. However, the absence of annotations coupled with the simple listing nature makes a mid-score appropriate.

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 directly states the tool's purpose and references the resource hierarchy, with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple no-parameter tool.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with no annotations and an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is sufficiently complete: it names the resource type and structure, which is all an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The absence of details about the output format is justified because the output schema should provide that.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% description coverage (no params to describe), so the description adds no parameter info but does not need to. The description's mention of 'skills:// resources' provides meaningful context about what the listing covers, which is valuable.

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 that the tool lists agent skills, and references the 'skills://' resource hierarchy, providing a specific verb (List) and resource (Agent Skills), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with memory, tasks, plans, or caching.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided, but its zero-parameter, listing nature implies it's a simple inspection tool without side effects, which is adequate for a straightforward list operation.

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