accelo_list_skills

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. Naming it a 'list' conveys read-only semantics and it surfaces operational constraints (page 0-indexed, limit max 100). But it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or default pagination behavior beyond the param notes.

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 purpose statement is front-loaded and the Args block is compact. Slightly more explanation of skills than strictly needed, but each line carries value for an agent.

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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, filtering, and pagination constraints adequately. Return shape is not described, but with no output schema that is a minor gap for a standard list endpoint.

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, and it largely does: it names every parameter and adds real meaning (filters keys id/title/against/order_by, against accepts an object like {"task": [24]}, search over title, page 0-indexed, limit max 100). The filter dict structure is not exhaustively specified, so not a 5.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List skills from Accelo') and then explains the domain object ('tags assigned to tasks or staff to match work with appropriate team members'). This clearly separates it from siblings like accelo_count_skills and accelo_create_skill.

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?

It describes how to use the 'against' object filter to scope results to a task or staff member, which is a useful routing hint. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as accelo_count_skills or the broader filter utilities, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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