Lists bundled engineering skills across hardware, reverse engineering, graphics, audio, and build/validation, with each skill’s purpose and path so agents can identify relevant capabilities.
List the bundled engineering skills (hardware, reverse engineering, graphics, audio, build/validation) with their purpose and path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden; it does convey that this is a non-destructive enumeration and that each entry carries a purpose and a path. It does not clarify whether the skills are static bundled content versus discovered at runtime, what form the paths take, or how many entries come back, which matters more given there is no output 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource come first and the category parenthetical scopes the content. The category list is slightly enumerative rather than essential, but it usefully signals coverage breadth.
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, low-risk listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (purpose and path per skill) and what domain it spans. Missing only the count/format of results and the explicit hand-off to retrace_skill_read, which are modest gaps at this complexity level.
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, which sets the baseline at 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It does confirm the tool is unfiltered (it lists all bundled skills), which is a small useful clarification for a no-arg call.
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 pairs the verb "List" with a concrete resource (bundled engineering skills) and enumerates the categories covered: hardware, reverse engineering, graphics, audio, build/validation. It is immediately distinguishable from reconnaissance-style siblings like rom_inspect or repo_search_code, though it never names the closely related retrace_skill_read, so the pairing is left implicit.
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?
Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the discovery step that precedes retrace_skill_read, but the description never says so, nor does it state any preconditions. There is no explicit when-not guidance either, so an agent must infer the list-then-read workflow from sibling names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.