List Watch Skills

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. "List" implies a non-mutating read and the description discloses what comes back (skills plus their existing videos), but it says nothing about behavior on a missing/invalid skills_root, whether the root is created, or ordering/pagination.

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?

Two short sentences with the capability stated first and the usage rationale second. The second sentence is slightly redundant in phrasing ("extends an existing skill" vs "already covers it"), but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, and with one well-documented parameter the surface is small. The only meaningful gap is undefined behavior for an invalid or empty skills_root.

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 100% for the single parameter, so the schema already defines skills_root as the directory holding video-built skills. The description adds no format, path-resolution, or constraint detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource: it lists video-built skills under a root directory plus the videos each already contains. That is clearly a read/inspection operation and distinct from build_watch_skill, though the sibling is never named explicitly.

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?

"Use it before building" gives a concrete trigger point, and the follow-on clause explains the decision it informs (extend an existing skill vs. create new, and coverage overlap). It stops short of naming build_watch_skill or stating when not to call it.

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