project_skills_list

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds behavioral constraints: it returns only metadata, never executes anything, and does not include skill bodies. It also specifies the known roots scanned. This contextualizes the read-only nature without contradicting annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences are front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential exclusions. There is no redundant phrasing or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers the key aspects: what is listed, where roots are, what is excluded, and read-only behavior. It leaves no critical ambiguity for a straightforward listing tool, though it could explain lease_id's role.

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 input schema has two parameters with defaults but zero descriptions. The description only notes 'lease_id optional' and provides no explanation of what lease_id affects or how project selects the workspace. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb phrase ('List Agent Skills manifests under known roots') and clarifies scope ('under known roots (.claude/.cursor/.agents/.codex skills)'). It also distinguishes from project_skill_read by explicitly noting 'Metadata only — no SKILL.md bodies.'

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 clearly states what the tool does not do ('Does not execute skills, !command, or scripts' and 'no SKILL.md bodies'), which implies when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for those cases, so it misses the highest bar.

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