list_skills

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that untrusted repo skills are returned by name and path only (no text), that rows are marked `source repo` with file path and trust state, and that skill text is human/agent-authored data rather than observed facts. It stops short of describing permissions, staleness, or ordering behavior.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct, load-bearing fact (repo discovery, trust gating, authorship caveat). The third sentence is long and clause-heavy, but trimming it further would lose behavioral detail.

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-required-param listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important return semantics (source marking, trust state, suppressed text) and even hints at paging via next_offset. What is missing is a 'when not to use this vs. search_skills/get_skill' routing note, but nothing critical to correct invocation is absent.

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 already 100%, so the 3 baseline is met by the schema alone. The description adds real meaning beyond it: it explains how `scope`/`directory` determine which repo skills are discovered (project root vs. server directory), which the bare schema strings do not convey.

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 first sentence names a specific verb+resource ("List skills in Suvadu's shared cross-agent skills library") and scopes it (cross-agent, reusable instructions). The second sentence adds the repo-skills scope with `source repo` marking, which clearly distinguishes it from the single-fetch `get_skill` and the query-oriented `search_skills` siblings.

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?

It gives a clear trigger: "Use this to discover what conventions/checklists/instructions already exist before starting work." That is a genuine usage context, but it never names the alternative tools (`search_skills`, `get_skill`) or states when those would be preferable, so no explicit exclusions are provided.

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