list_ask_skills

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose a filtering trait ('user-invocable' only) which is useful behavioral context, and a zero-parameter list is inherently side-effect free. However, it never states read-only semantics, result ordering, or whether the list is complete or paginated; the output schema covers return shape, which limits the gap.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the routing caveat. The parenthetical is dense but not wasteful; nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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 zero-parameter list with an output schema, the description supplies what matters: what is listed, the narrowing to user-invocable skills, and the downstream consumer of the IDs. An agent could call this correctly without further information; only the 'Context tools' reference remains under-specified.

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. The description does add value by explaining what the returned identifiers are for ('skill_id' consumed by ask_decisionpen), which is meaning a bare empty schema cannot convey.

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 user-invocable DecisionPen Ask skills', and narrows scope with 'user-invocable'. It also identifies its consumer ('for ask_decisionpen skill_id only'), so the agent knows this is a lookup feeder rather than a discovery tool. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_entity_types, but the Ask-skill domain is unambiguous.

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?

Gives a clear conditional: use this to obtain a skill_id for ask_decisionpen, and prefer Context tools when the question is catalog Q&A. That is real routing guidance, though it names no specific Context sibling (search_entities, describe_context_model, etc.), leaving the agent to map 'Context tools' to a concrete alternative.

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