List Hermes API skills

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the behavioral detail that it "writes redacted receipts," which is useful context beyond the annotations. It doesn't describe pagination behavior or return format, but there is an output schema to cover return values. A 3 is appropriate given the annotations carry much of the load.

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?

A single, tightly written sentence that states the HTTP method, endpoint path, and purpose. Zero wasted words. Front-loaded with the operation type and target resource.

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 GET list tool with full (100%) schema coverage, an output schema present, and rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), the description covers purpose and side effects (redacted receipts). The sibling tools are numerous and mostly mutations; this simple read tool needs little more. The "redacted receipts" note adds functional context. Complete as-is.

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%, so all three parameters (limit, offset, category) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond noting it's a GET wrapper. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting. Notably, the schema even discloses that category is 'reserved and ignored by the server,' which is more transparent than the tool description.

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?

"Typed GET /v1/skills wrapper that lists available skills" provides a specific verb (lists), resource (skills), and underlying operation (GET /v1/skills). It distinguishes from siblings like hermes_skill_read (reads a single skill) and hermes_skills_list (similar but without the API server target). The 'configured Hermes API server' context clarifies scope.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. It is implicitly a listing tool for skills from the Hermes API server, which contrasts with the many mutation/management siblings. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternative tools. Guidance is only implied by the read-only GET nature.

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