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 clearly signals a read-only listing operation ('List') and scope ('all installed'), which is useful. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, permissions, or parameter-dependent behavior such as what 'supported_only' does. Some context is added, but the description could be more transparent about the tool's filtering behavior.

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 sentences with no wasted words: the first states the action, the second explains the discovery purpose, and the third gives a clear usage preference. Each sentence adds value, and the description is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 low-complexity listing tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and usage guidance well. However, it omits parameter semantics (device and supported_only) and does not mention how these affect the result. With the output schema present, return format is covered, but the lack of parameter clarity leaves some gaps.

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 has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description fails to explain the 'device' parameter and only vaguely hints at filtering through 'platform support', which could relate to 'supported_only' but is not explicit. Since the schema provides no descriptions, the description should compensate but does not meaningfully do so.

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?

Clearly states it lists installed mobile automation skills with specific attributes (actions, workflows, platform support). This distinguishes it from raw interaction tools and other listing tools like list_apps by focusing on skills and the context of high-level automations.

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 directs when to use: to discover available high-level automations. It also provides an actionable preference rule: use run_workflow() instead of raw tap/swipe when a skill exists. This goes beyond generic descriptions and gives clear guidance on when to choose this tool.

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