Список скілів

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 the tool returns both Claude and Grok skills and implies the output contains names usable in glm_run, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, what the exact return structure is, or whether any side effects occur, leaving some gaps.

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 short sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds a useful operational hint about using output names in glm_run. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough context: it states what is listed and how the result can be used. However, it omits explicit mention of the 'extra' filter option and does not clearly describe the returned format beyond implying names, leaving slight ambiguity for an agent.

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 already documents the 'owner' parameter. The description adds semantic context by mentioning Claude and Grok categories, which align with filter values, but it does not explain the 'extra' value or the filtering mechanism beyond what the schema states. It adds marginal meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource (available skills on this machine) and distinguishes between Claude's and Grok's skills. It also hints at the tool's output being usable in glm_run, which separates it from execution or reading tools. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'list' or 'returns', though the title 'Список скілів' compensates.

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 a downstream usage hint: names from here can be passed to glm_run as the skill parameter. This implies the tool is for discovering skill names before running a skill, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like skill_read or how the owner filter relates to alternatives. No exclusions or contrasting with other tools are given.

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