List workflow skills

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so safety is covered without the description. The description adds useful scope context – the houdini-* prefix and that results are package-shipped skills rather than arbitrary ones – but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result volume, and an output schema covers the return shape.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the scope statement front-loaded and the usage routing second. Every clause earns its place and nothing repeats the annotations or schema.

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 enumeration tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly and points to the natural next step. The only small gap is that it does not clarify whether skills outside the houdini-* prefix exist and are excluded.

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; there are no argument semantics the description needs to compensate for. Schema coverage is reported at 100% with an empty properties object, so nothing is left ambiguous.

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 gives a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('houdini-* Agent Skills'), and the scope ('shipped with this package'), which also implies the prefix filter that separates this from get_skill. An agent can distinguish this listing tool from the sibling fetch/get_skill tools without opening 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 explicitly routes the agent: use this when choosing which skill to load via get_skill for the current Houdini task, naming the follow-up sibling and the condition that triggers it. It stops short of stating when the tool should NOT be used (e.g., when the skill name is already known), so it is clear but not complete.

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