memory_list_skills

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that skills are ordered by hit_count desc and lists included fields: topic, hit count, last-used timestamp, and description preview. This goes beyond a simple 'list' and gives behavioral insight into output format and ordering, though it lacks mentions of side effects or permissions (likely none for a list operation).

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 brief (two sentences plus a note) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The note adds contextual value for a specific fix, but could be considered slightly extraneous. Overall, it is efficiently structured and easy to parse.

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 that an output schema exists (as indicated by context signals), the description does not need to detail return values. It already mentions key output fields. However, it does not explain pagination behavior for the `limit` parameter or total count. For a simple list tool, the description is largely complete.

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 one parameter, `limit`, with a default of 50 and zero schema description coverage. The description does not mention `limit` or its purpose. Although the parameter is common for pagination, the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent to guess its role.

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 "List extracted skills, ordered by hit_count desc." This makes the action (list) and resource (extracted skills) explicit, and the ordering distinguishes it from other memory tools like memory_extract_skills (extraction) and memory_compile_skill (compilation), which are 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?

The description includes a note about "P0 fix #5: gives the operator a way to inspect what the lower-threshold extractor actually pulled in." This provides usage context (after extraction, for inspection) and implies when to use it. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent to infer appropriate usage.

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