relay_skills_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read operation (list/returns) and describes the return format (skill names, descriptions, metrics, examples), which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the list is comprehensive versus filtered by default.

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 two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, resource definition, and return details without redundancy. Each sentence adds value: the first defines the action and resource, the second specifies the return format. It's front-loaded and wastes no words.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what skills are and what data is returned, which compensates for the lack of output schema. However, for a list operation, it could benefit from mentioning potential behavioral aspects like ordering or default behavior when no category is specified.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents the single optional parameter 'category' with its enum values. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but with only one parameter and high schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description's explanation of skills provides context that indirectly supports understanding the category filter, warranting a slight bump to 4.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('available pre-built workflow skills'), defines what skills are ('reusable patterns for common tasks'), and distinguishes this from siblings like relay_models_list or relay_runs_list by focusing specifically on skills rather than models or runs. It provides specific examples of skill types (invoice processing, content pipelines).

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 usage context by explaining what skills are and what information is returned, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like relay_models_list or relay_workflow_validate. There's no guidance on prerequisites or when-not-to-use scenarios, leaving usage decisions to inference.

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