List the Edgegap agent skills

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact not in the annotations: 'No API call,' telling the agent this is a cheap local read with no auth or rate-limit concerns. It stops short of describing the return shape or pagination (irrelevant here, but unstated).

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?

Front-loaded with the verb+resource, then a compact clause of payload detail, then the routing instruction in one sentence. No filler, and the most actionable content (which skill to load) lands before the reader has to scan for it.

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?

No output schema and no parameters, so the description carries the full burden and meets it: it says what the list contains, names the specific skill identifiers, and gives the exact next tool to call. Nothing an agent needs to call this or act on its result is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument call and instead spends its words on the skill names the follow-up call will need, which is the more valuable information for a 0-param tool.

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 (Edgegap agent skills) and then defines what those skills actually are: 'tested, step-by-step workflows for getting a multiplayer game online on Edgegap, with templates ... and known pitfalls.' An agent can distinguish this from edgegap_get_skill purely from the text.

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?

Explicitly says when to act and how: 'Before working on a game project, load the matching skill with edgegap_get_skill,' then routes by engine (edgegap-unity, edgegap-unreal, edgegap for everything else). This is the rare case where the alternative tool and the selection condition are both named with concrete values.

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