list_skills

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, yet the description contributes beyond them: a prerequisite ('Requires initialized project memory'), an explicit negative scope (no registration/sync/activation), and a state caveat ('unregistered directories remain unregistered'). These are exactly the side-effect boundaries an agent needs before calling in a skills-management suite.

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?

Content is front-loaded (verb+resource first, then routing, then constraints) and every sentence carries weight except the return-value sentence, which partly restates what the output schema already provides. Slightly dense but no filler.

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?

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description only needs to supply routing, prerequisites, and boundaries — and it supplies all three. An agent has everything required to call this correctly at session start.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter meaning to add or omit. The description correctly avoids inventing inputs and instead spends its words on scope and prerequisites.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Read the catalog of canonical skills, native installation state, and latent candidates'), and explicitly differentiates itself from get_skill_detail (one entry) and recommend_skills (evidence-based candidates). An agent can identify exactly what this tool returns without inspecting any schema.

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 gives explicit when-to-use ('at startup through bootstrap or to find skill IDs'), names the two sibling alternatives and the condition that selects them, and adds a when-not clause ('Does not register, synchronize, or activate skills'). Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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