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 of behavioral disclosure. The description only states a fetch/list operation with no information on return format, pagination behavior, ordering semantics, or any side effects. With zero annotation coverage and only a one-sentence description, there's substantial unmet behavioral transparency need.

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 a single efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose without waste. For a simple list operation in Japanese, this brevity is arguably appropriate, though it does err on the side of under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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?

This is a list tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, a nested filter object, and no annotations. The one-sentence description doesn't explain return value structure, pagination behavior, or the interaction between profile_id and API key scoping. Given the complexity of the parameter surface (nested filter, scoping requirements) and lack of output schema, the description should provide significantly more guidance.

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 the schema already documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the heavy lifting, though the nested 'filter' object with additionalProperties for column-value pairs could use more explanation in the 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?

The description 'スキル一覧を取得' (get list of skills) clearly states the verb (取得/get) and resource (スキル一覧/skill list). It distinguishes from sibling list_* tools since each is named for its targeted resource type. However, it doesn't add detail about the scope or context of what a 'skill' is beyond the name.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There are many sibling list_* tools (list_projects, list_goals, etc.) that share the same pattern, and the description offers no differentiation. The schema's profile_id parameter implies context about profile-scoped vs account-scoped API keys, but this is in the schema, not the description, and no usage context is described.

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