List skills

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description's 'Read-only, free' restates that rather than adding new context. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that skills are SKILL.md bundles loaded by get_skill — but doesn't mention pagination, count, or ordering. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate: marginal value beyond structured fields.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the parenthetical that defines a skill and the follow-up call both earning their place. Slightly dense with the em-dash aside, but 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?

For a zero-param, read-only list tool with no output schema, the agent knows what it will get (skill bundles, strategy skills, creative recipes) and what to do next (get_skill). The only gap is the shape/count of returned items and how it relates to list_playbooks/list_library, which a sibling-confused agent might need.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering or pagination arguments are needed. No parameter detail is required or expected, and none is incorrectly omitted.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List the bundled Hermoso SKILLS') and goes further by defining what a skill actually is (multi-step workflow instructions / SKILL.md that orchestrate other tools). This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like list_memory, list_brands, or list_playbooks, which are never defined or contrasted.

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 routes the agent forward: 'Call get_skill to load a bundle', naming the natural follow-up sibling. It also enumerates what categories appear in the list (orchestration skills, in-app strategy skills, creative recipes), which implicitly tells the agent what to expect. However, it doesn't say when NOT to use this (e.g., vs list_playbooks or list_library) and gives no selection criteria among the returned skills.

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