list_skills

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a readonly browse operation but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it mention authentication, rate limits, or return format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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, two sentences long, with the primary action front-loaded. It avoids fluff and gets to the point, though it could benefit from a slightly more structured presentation of key capabilities.

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 list tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It introduces terminology like 'live and market skills' without clarification, and it does not mention return structure or any special behavior. It is minimally viable but lacks depth that would help an agent use it confidently.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only mentions 'sort by downloads' which hints at the sort parameter, but it does not explain the category parameter or the full semantics of the enum values. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, which already provides enums and defaults.

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 tool browses skills and mentions sorting by downloads, which gives a specific action and resource. It does not explicitly name a sibling for differentiation, but it is not a tautology and provides enough clarity to understand the core function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as market_listings. The only usage hint is about sorting by downloads to see popular skills, but no exclusions or alternative selection criteria are given, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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