phases_agents_list_skills

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 does not explain what makes a package 'valide', whether discovery scans the filesystem or a cache, whether it is read-only, or how it relates to refresh_skills; only a vague 'découvre' hint is offered.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the filtering constraint is included. It is terse to the point of being under-specified rather than bloated.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and half the parameters undocumented, the description does not provide enough for an agent to call this correctly or interpret results — notably it never says whether 'valides' filtering has side effects or what is returned.

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 coverage is 50% and the description adds no parameter information at all. In particular 'root_ids' is undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving the agent to guess what roots to search and what identifier format they take.

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+resource: 'Découvre et liste ... les packages de skills valides', with a scope qualifier ('uniquement ... valides') that hints at filtering. It does not name or contrast with the sibling get_skill or refresh_skills, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternatives among siblings (detect, get_skill, plan, refresh_skills). The agent must guess whether listing is a discovery step or a cached read.

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