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. 'List' implies a non-mutating read, but it does not state that explicitly, nor does it mention output shape, ordering, or pagination behavior. It adds the repo scoping behavior, which is modest value, but no safety or side-effect disclosure.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. The parenthetical repo enumeration is somewhat long and partly duplicates schema examples, but it usefully scopes the corpus and costs little.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the sole parameter is well documented. However, with a closely related sibling (find_skill) and no annotations, the definition leaves the agent without routing guidance or any read-only assurance, which is a real gap for selection.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'repo' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including default and empty-string semantics. The description only repeats the repo families, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('agent-skill corpus') with scope ('per repo'), and enumerates the repo families it covers. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling find_skill, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. The sibling find_skill is clearly the lookup-by-name counterpart, and the description never says 'use this to enumerate, use find_skill to look up a specific skill by name.' Usage is only implied by the word 'List' and the optional repo filter.

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