list_available_skills

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It transparently states the action ('List'), the return value ('Formatted list of available personas'), and the varying detail levels. The examples demonstrate expected behavior, and there is no indication of side effects or hidden complexities.

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and Examples sections, and the purpose is front-loaded. It is longer than strictly necessary due to four example blocks, but each example is useful and the overall layout remains scannable.

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 simple list tool, the description covers lifecycle, parameters, output formats, and usage scenarios. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to enumerate return fields, and the description sufficiently contextualizes the tool among its sibling listing/query tools.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by documenting both parameters. 'category' lists all valid values, and 'format' explains the three output modes with behavioral differences. This gives the agent all parameter-level semantics 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 opens with 'List all available skill personas with flexible detail levels', a specific verb+resource pair that immediately conveys the tool's function. It is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like get_persona_content and consult_skill, which focus on individual persona details or interactive consultation.

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 provides context by explaining the 'format' parameter options (standard, detailed, quick) and the category filter, with examples showing typical usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or fallback tools.

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