memory_list_skills

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only states the basic action. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, the scope of skills returned, or any side effects, though listing is typically non-destructive.

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 a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and effectively communicates the tool's purpose.

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 no parameters and an output schema available, the description is sufficient. It could mention that skills are from memory, but the output schema presumably covers return format, so no major gaps.

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 input schema is empty (100% coverage), so no parameter information is needed. The description does not add any further meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is adequate for a tool with no parameters.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'skills/capabilities recorded in memory'. It differentiates itself from sibling memory tools like memory_list_entries and memory_list_events by specifying a distinct resource type.

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 implies when to use this tool (when needing to see recorded skills/capabilities). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling tool names provide implicit context.

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