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 does disclose a meaningful trait: results are scoped by the current license tier (Free, Pro, Enterprise), which an agent would not otherwise know. It does not state that the operation is read-only, note any pagination/result-size behavior, or mention auth/license prerequisites beyond the tier mention.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every clause (license tier scope, rule summaries, categories) contributes information; nothing is redundant or padded.

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 low-complexity list tool with one optional, fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and a rough sense of return content. Minor gaps remain around return structure (e.g., ordering, whether full rule text is included) and read-only status, but nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the single optional 'category' parameter is fully enumerated in the schema (core, language, quality, compliance, enterprise). The description mentions 'categories' but adds no filtering semantics or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource ('List all Fredo QA Skills') and adds scope (current license tier) plus the shape of the result (rule summaries and categories). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_skill_rules or install_skill, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The use case is only implied: browse available skills, presumably before calling install_skill or get_skill_rules. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer routing.

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