bdesign_skill_list

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds value beyond the annotation by disclosing that this lists only official bundled Skills (not user-created or remote ones) and that results include compatibility information and MCP resource URIs, giving the agent a concrete sense of the return payload.

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?

A single 16-word sentence that leads with the action and resource, then packs the two most valuable details (scope and return contents) with zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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 simple zero-parameter discovery tool with a readOnly annotation and no output schema, the description tells the agent what it lists, which items are in scope, and what fields to expect. It does not mention pagination or behavior with an empty installation, but these are minor gaps for a list tool of this simplicity.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Per the framework, a 0-parameter tool earns a baseline of 4, and the description appropriately spends no space on parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('official creative Skills'), and a scope qualifier ('bundled with this BeatDesign installation'). It also states what the result includes (compatibility and MCP resource URIs). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling bdesign_skill_get, which targets an individual skill.

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 verb 'List' and scope 'bundled with this BeatDesign installation' imply the tool is for enumerating available skills, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over bdesign_skill_get or how it relates to sibling discovery tools. Usage is inferred rather than stated, so it meets the 'implied usage' bar but not higher.

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