twprojects-list_skills

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description "List skills." is consistent with this. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as pagination behavior or search capabilities. With annotations, the bar is lower, but some extra context would be helpful.

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 extremely short (two words), which is concise but at the expense of informativeness. For a tool with 4 parameters and an output schema, a few more sentences would improve usability without being verbose. It is not structured to front-load key information.

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 has 4 parameters, pagination, and optional verbose mode, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what a skill is, how pagination works, or when to use search_term. With an output schema, some burden is reduced, but the description should still provide a high-level overview.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter has a clear description (e.g., page, verbose, page_size, search_term). The description "List skills." adds no parameter meaning. Baseline is 3 because schema already documents parameters well.

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 "List skills." is minimal and matches the verb in the name, but lacks specificity about what is being listed (e.g., all skills, filtered). It does not differentiate from siblings like twprojects-get_skill or twprojects-create_skill. It is not a tautology, but barely adequate.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No instructions about pagination, filtering, or when to use search_term. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools like twprojects-get_skill.

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