List Skills

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full responsibility. It states the read-only nature via the verb '列出' (list) and specifies the return fields (name, version, description), giving agents a concrete expectation of the output. It does not mention edge cases like empty lists or pagination, but the simple scope is adequately disclosed.

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 two concise Chinese sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the return value. Every word serves a purpose with no filler.

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?

The tool is extremely simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description covers both the operation ('list all available skills') and the return value structure (name, version, description), making it complete for this low complexity.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter details because there are none, and it fully covers any parameter semantics by imposing none.

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 '列出' (list) and clearly identifies the resource '所有可用的 SoloFlow Skill' (all available SoloFlow Skills). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like soloflow_get_skill (which retrieves one skill) and soloflow_run_skill (which executes a 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 provides clear context that this tool is for enumerating all available skills, which implies its use for skill discovery. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use get_skill for a specific skill'), so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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