list_skills

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully explains the behavior: it returns a list of skills with name and description extracted from SKILL.md files under a specific path. It describes the source of the description (YAML frontmatter). However, it does not mention potential side effects (none expected), performance characteristics, or error handling (e.g., empty list). Overall, it covers the essential behavioral aspects for a read-only list operation.

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?

The description is compact with three sentences: one declaring the output, one explaining the source, and one giving usage context. It front-loads the key information and every sentence adds value. No wasted words or redundant clarifications.

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?

Given no parameters and an output schema, the description covers the return format and domain context (the file path). It mentions the tool's role as a directory before get_skill, which completes the picture. However, it omits handling edge cases (e.g., no skills found) and does not explicitly state that no authorization is needed. Still, for a simple listing tool, it is reasonably complete.

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 has no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter information. Schema description coverage is 100% (0 parameters). The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description meets that without adding extraneous 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 clearly states the verb 'return', the resource 'all in-package skills', and specifies the output format as a list of name-description pairs. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_skill' by stating its role as a directory before calling get_skill. The purpose is unambiguous and well-defined.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this as a directory of what doctrine is available before calling get_skill(name) for the body.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (before get_skill) and when not to (if the full skill body is needed, use get_skill). It effectively differentiates from the sibling tool, offering clear decision-making context.

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