list_skills

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of result ordering, completeness limits, or pagination behavior for what is presumably a list endpoint.

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 filler or redundancy. It is tightly sized for the operation, though it is arguably a touch too terse to carry the sibling-routing burden.

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 trivial zero-argument, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is close to sufficient but omits what a skill entry contains and how this differs from search_skills/get_skill, which is exactly the information an agent needs to choose correctly among the three.

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 schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. The statement that it returns all skills is consistent with the empty input schema.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('List all available prompt-engineering skills') with a scope qualifier ('all available') that hints at unfiltered enumeration. However, it never distinguishes itself from the close siblings search_skills and get_skill, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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 word 'all' loosely implies the unfiltered-enumeration case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative despite search_skills and get_skill sitting right next to it. The agent gets essentially no routing guidance.

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