list_skills

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

With no annotations, the description adds behavioral context: it lists only manifest-only, sanitized, experimental skills, does not leak body ref, and does not trigger resolve. This is sufficient but could mention idempotency or caching.

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?

The description is short but mixed language (English + Chinese). The key info is present, but the Chinese phrases may reduce clarity for non-Chinese agents. Some redundancy exists.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the output nature (manifest-only, sanitized, experimental) and behavioral constraints. Missing region explanation is the main gap.

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 optional parameter 'region' is not explained at all in the description. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to clarify what region influences.

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 clearly states 'List registered Skill manifests' with specific qualifiers (manifest-only, sanitized, experimental). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_adapters or list_knowledge.

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 mentions it's a 'Phase 4 discovery surface' and a 'Router API call point', implying a specific use case, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or provide exclusions.

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