list_skills

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds that the scan is over local machine directories and that duplicate-name conflicts and mirrors are detected, but says nothing about how conflicts are surfaced in the result or about 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?

Front-loaded with the resource and scope, followed by one line per parameter — no filler. The terse telegraphic style is efficient, though the conflict/mirror clause is left dangling without explanation.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey return shape; it only says results carry description and path, and that conflicts/mirrors are distinguished without showing how. For a 3-parameter listing tool this is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the result structure.

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 the description must carry the burden, and it does explain all three parameters: query filters by name/description, extra_dirs takes comma-separated additional directories, and detail makes every entry include a description. It adds format and effect semantics beyond the bare types, though it doesn't clarify query matching rules (substring vs fuzzy).

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 concrete verb+resource (list local Agent Skills) and enumerates the exact sources scanned (Cursor, Codex, Claude user dirs, plugins, SKILL_DIRS), plus a scope note about de-duplicating same-name conflicts and mirrors. It implicitly differentiates from the detail-oriented sibling inspect_skill, though it never names an alternative.

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?

Usage is only implied through the parameter notes — filter by name/description via query, add directories via extra_dirs. There is no explicit 'use this when…' statement, no exclusions, and no pointer to inspect_skill for drilling into a single skill.

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