skill_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds some context by introducing 'validated' and 'slugs', but it doesn't state whether the operation is read-only, how the list is ordered or paginated, or any other behavioral traits like authentication requirements. This is a minimal addition beyond the tool name.

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 a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no fluff or redundant information, and every part of the sentence adds value by specifying 'validated' and 'slugs'.

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 simplicity (no parameters, output schema present), the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks usage context relative to sibling tools and doesn't clarify the meaning of 'validated' or whether the list is complete or paginated. This leaves some gaps for an agent invoking the tool in a complex workflow.

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 the baseline is 4. There is no need for parameter explanations in the description, and the empty input schema fully documents the absence of inputs, making the description sufficient in this dimension.

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 clearly states the tool lists validated skills and specifies that the output consists of slugs. The verb 'List' and resource 'skills' are specific, and the qualifier 'validated' adds a distinct scope. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling skill_read tool, relying on the verb to imply a list vs. read 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as skill_read or case_list. The description simply states what it does without providing context on typical use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.

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