skills / list

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's one contribution is the catalog boundary (bundled only), which is useful but thin; it says nothing about whether the list is static or versioned, or what a returned entry contains.

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?

One clause pair, scope stated first and the exclusion second. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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 no-arg, read-only list tool with no output schema, the definition is close to sufficient but leaves the return shape entirely unspecified — an agent cannot tell whether entries carry names, descriptions, or identifiers to feed into skills.read.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing to disambiguate and the description correctly implies an unfiltered full dump rather than a search.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List bundled Rootstock and Orchard agent skills') and narrows scope with 'no third-party skill installation', so an agent knows this enumerates a curated catalog. It never names the sibling skills.read, so the distinction between listing and reading a skill must be inferred from the verb alone.

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 exclusion ('no third-party skill installation') implicitly tells the agent not to come here for external skills, but there is no positive when-to-use guidance and no mention of skills.read as the follow-up for fetching one skill's details.

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