list_skills

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only enumeration but never states the return shape (names only? descriptions? metadata?), whether results are paginated, or what a 'skill' actually is. The word 'all' also sits slightly at odds with the category filter.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The only wasted token is the opaque "(Phase 5)" marker, which conveys nothing to a caller.

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 simple single-parameter list tool with no output schema, this is minimally adequate, but an agent still cannot tell what a returned skill entry looks like or how to proceed after listing. It is callable but underspecified relative to the skill-discovery workflow it belongs to.

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 has 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond the schema — it does not hint at valid category values or what happens when category is omitted.

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 and resource: lists available design knowledge skills. However, the parenthetical "(Phase 5)" is internal jargon that adds no meaning, and the description does not distinguish this from the closely related siblings load_skill, suggest_skills, and get_guidelines.

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?

No statement of when to call this versus alternatives. With load_skill, suggest_skills, and get_guidelines sitting right next to it in the toolset, an agent gets no routing signal from the description and must infer the difference.

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