list_skills

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses that the tool 'only reads local files under skills/, does not connect to Meta, Google Ads, or TikTok and does not run campaigns,' which prevents the agent from expecting external side effects. It also describes the return contents, giving useful behavioral expectations beyond a simple 'list' label.

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 concise and well-structured, front-loading the main action and resource. Each sentence earns its place: what it returns, when to use it, and what it does not do. No redundant or vague language.

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 zero-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It names the domain of skills, gives the intended first-use pattern, describes return fields, and explicitly scopes its behavior. An agent has everything needed to invoke it and interpret the result.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description still usefully explains the output shape, which is more relevant for this tool. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since parameter documentation is not 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List public AdsAgent skills shipped in this repository.' It clearly distinguishes this catalog-listing tool from siblings like get_skill, which opens a specific SKILL.md, and from get_hosted_mcp_urls/get_pack_readme. The scope is unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Use this first when you need a catalog of documentation skills... before opening a specific SKILL.md,' providing a clear when-to-use directive. It does not spell out when-not-to-use or name alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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