skill_list

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and idempotent. The description adds meaningful transparency by disclosing that unreadable skills are reported, so an empty list is not misleading, and by naming the exact scripts that may be executed via skill_run.

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?

Two sentences, tightly packed with useful information. The core action and result contents are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a valuable edge-case guarantee without redundant phrasing.

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 listing tool, the description fully covers what is returned and how failures are represented, while annotations cover the safety profile. No output schema exists, but the enumerated return fields are sufficient for an agent to understand the result.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so parameter documentation is already complete. The description needs no additional parameter-level detail; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every Agent Skill this server found'), and clarifies the contents of the listing: name, description, when to use, file count, and executable scripts. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools skill_load, skill_file, and skill_run.

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 makes it obvious that this tool is for enumeration/inspection, and it references skill_run as the mechanism for script execution. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the routing mostly implicit.

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