list_skills

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It indicates a read-only listing operation and provides output context (fileId can be used with read_file), but it does not disclose potential team scoping via teamId, pagination, or error behavior.

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 two short sentences that each add value: the first defines the resource and scope with an example, the second gives a clear next step. No redundant or filler content.

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 listing tool, the description covers the core purpose and a useful follow-up, but leaves gaps: teamId semantics, return format, and the meaning of 'this space' are undocumented. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 defines one parameter, teamId, but the description does not mention it at all. With 0% schema coverage, the agent receives no guidance on what teamId means or whether it should be supplied.

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 a specific action and resource: 'List SKILL.md files mirrored from git folders'. The example 'novel-dialogue' and the distinction from sibling tools like list_git_folders and read_skill make the purpose 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?

The description implies usage through the imperative 'List' and offers a workflow hint ('Then read_file on the fileId'), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as list_files or read_skill, nor any exclusions.

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