List WunderUI agent skills

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

No annotations are supplied, but the description discloses the most important behavioral trait for this catalog: some skills are gated behind WUNDERUI_LICENSE_KEY while others are free. That access-condition context is exactly what annotations would otherwise have to carry; only the return shape is left unstated, which is minor for a zero-parameter list.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, though the long parenthetical catalog of skill types makes it denser than ideal. Every clause contributes content, but the list-within-parentheses could be trimmed.

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, no-output-schema catalog tool, the description covers what the tool surfaces and the licensing constraint an agent needs before proceeding. Only the shape of the returned entries is unspecified, which is a modest gap.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The sentence stays focused on what is listed rather than inventing parameter guidance.

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 names the resource (WunderUI agent skills) and enumerates the concrete capabilities covered — project setup, screen building, theming, migration, audits, Figma. It is not a tautology of the name, though it relies on the title for the 'list' verb and only implicitly contrasts with get_skill.

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 free-vs-Pro licensing note tells the agent when a skill will actually be usable, which is real usage guidance. However, it never states when to call this versus get_skill or get_instructions, so the browse-then-fetch workflow must be inferred from sibling names.

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