skills_list_all

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only, returns lightweight frontmatter, and supports pagination. It does not hide any destructive or mutating 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 concise with clear sections, using a heading and bullet-like formatting. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 annotations and a simple tool with output schema, the description covers behavior, pagination, and return content. It is sufficient for an agent to use correctly, though additional info on rate limits or error handling could improve it.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains both parameters (limit and offset) in the context of pagination, adding meaning beyond defaults and types. However, it could be more explicit about acceptable ranges.

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 it's for browsing all 100+ skills without semantic search, using a verb (browse, list) and resource (skills registry). It distinguishes from siblings like skills_find_relevant by explicitly noting it is not for semantic search.

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 clear context for when to use (to see available skills, understand breadth, browse) and implicitly when not to (instead of searching). It mentions pagination details but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios.

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