List Hermes skills

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by metadata. The description adds context about what it does NOT touch (profile memory, skills writes, evals), which adds value beyond annotations. However, it doesn't describe output shape or pagination semantics, though it does have an output schema. With strong annotations, the description's additional 'non-operations' clarification earns a 3.

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 sentence that front-loads the main operation ('List Hermes toolkit/profile skill directories'), adds a scoping qualifier ('and linked-file inventories'), and then efficiently enumerates exclusions. Zero waste, no redundancy with the title. Well-structured with the negation listing at the end.

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 has 6 optional parameters (none required), a rich output schema, and strong annotations. The description correctly focuses on the operation's scope and boundaries rather than repeating schema details. It's complete for a read-only list operation: clear purpose, clear exclusions, and the schema handles parameter semantics. Slight deduction for not mentioning pagination behavior explicitly, though limit/offset params cover this implicitly.

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 0%, so the description carries full burden for parameter meaning. However, the parameter names in the schema (home, limit, detail, offset, profile, toolkit_root) are largely self-explanatory — 'limit'/'offset' clearly imply pagination, 'detail' has an enum of summary/full, 'profile' and 'toolkit_root' are path selectors. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema names convey, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states what the tool does: lists skill directories and linked-file inventories while explicitly excluding three operations (reading profile memory, writing skills, invoking evals). The verb 'List' plus 'toolkit/profile skill directories and linked-file inventories' is specific and resource-bound. It distinguishes from nearby siblings like hermes_skill_read and hermes_skill_eval_start by naming what it does NOT do.

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 clearly states the scope and explicitly lists excluded operations (without reading profile memory, writing skills, invoking evals), giving the agent a good sense of safe use. It doesn't name explicit sibling alternatives for when a user needs something excluded, but the exclusions themselves serve as implicit guidance. Could be improved by pointing to hermes_skill_read for reading content or hermes_skill_eval_start for evals.

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