dealdesk.list_skills

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read, but the description says nothing about pagination, ordering, whether the result is scoped to a plugin version, or what happens when no skills are shipped. Only the bare minimum is conveyed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably so terse that it omits useful routing context that would still have earned its place.

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?

This is a low-complexity, single-parameter, read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, it omits any indication of what the returned skills contain or how they relate to the dealdesk-plugin packaging, leaving it only minimally adequate.

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 100% and the single projectId parameter is fully documented in the schema (must match API key / OAuth project). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (List) and resource (shipped DealDesk sales skills packaged with dealdesk-plugin), which is concrete enough for an agent to understand what it returns. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as dealdesk.discover, which could plausibly surface similar capability information, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to call list_skills versus dealdesk.discover for capability discovery.

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