listar_habilidades

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no indication of whose profile is read (own vs. another user), whether the result is paginated or ordered, or what happens when the profile has no skills. "Todas" implies an unfiltered full list, which is the only real behavioral signal.

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 short sentence with zero waste, front-loading the verb and the resource. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 read of a simple list, the description is nearly sufficient; there is no output schema, but the return (a list of skills) is self-evident from the wording. The only gap is the unstated scope of "do perfil".

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 schema has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly implies the call targets the profile implicitly rather than taking an identifier.

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 clear verb+resource ("Lista todas as habilidades/skills do perfil"), so an agent immediately knows it retrieves the profile's skills. It does not name or contrast itself with any sibling, but the resources of the siblings (experiências, projetos, recomendações, repositórios) are distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are given; usage is only implied by the name and the resource it lists. For a trivial zero-argument list tool with no obvious competing sibling this is tolerable, but it adds nothing an agent could not infer.

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