List All Loaded Skills

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a read operation ('Returns') and specifies the scope ('complete inventory of all loaded skills'). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements that might be relevant for a complete behavioral understanding.

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 perfectly structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and output format, the second provides usage guidance and sibling differentiation. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides excellent context about what the tool does and when to use it. The main gap is the lack of information about the return format structure, which would be helpful since there's no output schema. However, given the tool's simplicity, the description is largely complete.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately acknowledges this by not discussing parameters at all, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage guidelines. This is efficient and avoids redundancy.

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 the specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('complete inventory of all loaded skills'), listing the exact data fields included (names, descriptions, sources, document counts). It explicitly distinguishes this from its sibling 'search_skills' by stating this is for exploration/debugging rather than task-specific relevance.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('for exploration or debugging to see what skills are available') and when not to use it, naming the alternative tool 'search_skills' for finding relevant skills for specific tasks. This gives clear context for tool selection.

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