List skills skills

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: results are compact name+description entries, pagination uses a cursor, and filtering is optional.

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, tight sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then states filters and pagination. Every clause adds useful information with no filler.

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 read-only listing tool with an output schema, annotations, and a simple parameter set, the description covers output shape, filtering options, and pagination. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description compensates by clarifying that library and category are optional filters and that pagination uses a cursor. It does not add meaning for the limit parameter, though the schema's default/min/max constraints provide partial guidance.

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 it lists skills as a compact catalog, with name and one-line description, and that filters by library/category are available. It distinguishes itself from get_skill and read_skill_file through the 'catalog listing' framing, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with skills_search_skills.

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 implies usage for browsing/enumerating skills and points to skills_list_categories for category context, which is helpful. However, it never explicitly says when to use this list tool instead of skills_search_skills or get_skill, leaving the routing decision partly to inference.

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