knowl_skill_list

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful context beyond that: the on-disk source (`.knowl/skills`), the reduced payload ('name and purpose only'), and the bridge/persistence rationale. No contradictions or hidden side effects are present.

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 with no filler: the first states the operation and scope, the second explains the rationale and points to the sibling for more detail. The key information is front-loaded.

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, read-only listing with annotations, the description is complete: source, payload scope, purpose, and differentiation from knowl_skill_read are all present. Even without an output schema, it states what the result contains (name and purpose).

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema leaves nothing ambiguous and the description confirms this is a parameterless listing. This matches the 0-parameter baseline of 4; no parameter documentation is missing.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('learned file-backed skills from `.knowl/skills`'), and an explicit scope ('name and purpose only'). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling knowl_skill_read, which is pointed to for reading manifest details.

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?

It gives explicit context for when this is useful ('stable MCP bridge so old sessions can discover newly created skills') and names the alternative for deeper reading ('read one with knowl_skill_read for its manifest and instructions'). This clearly routes an agent to the correct sibling.

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