guardentry_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 indicates this is a read-only listing operation ('List all...') and adds that results are grouped by category. However, it does not explicitly disclose that it has no side effects, requires no permissions, or any other behavioral traits, but for a simple list tool this is adequate.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('List all available...') and provides useful additional detail (grouping) without any wasted words.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does and what the output contains (skills with descriptions, grouped by category). There is no missing information that would prevent an agent from selecting and invoking it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema is an empty object. The description needs to explain no parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. It adds no extra parameter information because none is needed.

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 uses the specific verb 'list' and identifies the resource ('available GuardEntry agent skills'). It also specifies the output grouping ('by category: research, analysis, write, output'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like guardentry_list_risks or guardentry_invoke_skill.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need to list available skills) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., for invoking a skill, use guardentry_invoke_skill). There is no exclusionary guidance, so it falls short of a 4.

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