skills_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool never returns skill content (important behavioral constraint) and describes the return structure. However, it does not explicitly mention that the tool is read-only or any potential side effects, though for a list tool this is less critical. Still, a 4 is appropriate as it adds some value beyond the schema.

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 concise, front-loads the main purpose, and is structured with clear 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the return type ('List of skills with name, title, platform, tags, description and required tools') and clarifies that it does not return skill content. This is complete for the tool's complexity and the context of its siblings.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so excellently: it explains each parameter (platform, tag, reload) with possible values, defaults, and semantics. For platform and tag, it lists example values, adding significant meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 that the tool 'List available diagnostic skills/workflows' and distinguishes itself from sibling 'skills_load' by noting that after listing, one should use skills_load to load a specific skill. The verb 'List' and resource 'skills' are specific, and the relationship to the sibling is explicit.

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 explicit usage context: 'Call this first to discover what's available, then use skills_load() to load a specific skill.' It also explains the optional filters (platform, tag) and the reload parameter, giving clear guidance on when and how to use the tool.

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