list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only listing behavior and explains the drill-down mechanism, but it does not mention the return format, what happens if an invalid path is passed, or any side-effect guarantees. 'List' implies no mutation, but more detail on output or error behavior would strengthen transparency.

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?

Two sentences carry the entire definition with zero filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the optional-argument behavior is explained efficiently with concrete examples.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core use cases: top-level listing and category drill-down. It gives examples and the dot-separated path convention. The only notable gap is specifying the output shape or behavior for an invalid category path, but that's minor for a simple read-only list tool.

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 already fully documents the category parameter: dot-separated path, examples, and 'omit or leave empty' behavior. The description largely restates this same information and only adds the context of 'subcategories and skills', so it adds minimal value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies given 100% schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('top-level categories', 'subcategories and skills'), and explains the optional drill-down behavior. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools to distinguish itself, but 'Use this to explore the skill library structure' provides enough context to separate it from search/read/keywords/help.

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 gives a clear usage cue ('Use this to explore the skill library structure') and explicit invocation patterns: call without arguments for top-level categories, or pass a dot-separated path to drill in. It stops short of a 5 because it doesn't explicitly say when to use a sibling tool like search instead.

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