agy_list_skills

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the scan location (~/.agents/skills/), the metadata merge from .skill-lock.json, and the return shape. It does not cover failure modes or permissions, but for a read-only listing tool this is adequate.

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 compact sentences plus a return-format block. The purpose is front-loaded and every part adds usable information without waste.

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?

The description defines scope, source paths, metadata merging, and return format, which is enough for a simple list tool. It lacks any note about the optional ctx parameter and explicit sibling routing, but the core invocation context is largely complete.

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 single parameter 'ctx' has 0% schema coverage and is not mentioned in the description. The description provides no meaning beyond the bare schema field and does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all installed Antigravity agent skills') plus source info. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like agy_read_skill and agy_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?

Implies a full-inventory use case by saying 'all installed', but does not explicitly say when to choose it over agy_search_skills or provide exclusions. Some routing context is present, but it is left to inference.

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