twprojects-list_skills

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint: true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, default limits, or filtering scope. It adds value only minimally beyond annotations.

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 concise (two words) and front-loaded, but it lacks detail that would justify its brevity. While not verbose, it sacrifices clarity for conciseness. A slightly longer description could improve guidance without being wasteful.

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 complexity (pagination and search parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not hint at filtering capabilities or how results are returned. The agent may not understand the full functionality without inspecting the schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides. The schema descriptions for page, page_size, and search_term are clear, so no additional value is needed.

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.' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (skills), but does not differentiate from many other list tools on the same server (e.g., twprojects-list_projects, twdesk-list_users). It is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like twprojects-get_skill for a single skill or other list tools. There is no mention of context or exclusions.

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