list_skills

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

The annotation readOnlyHint is true and the description does not contradict it; it mentions reading account setup, prices, etc. The description adds useful context by noting that the returned schema is the HTTP API schema and that local MCP accepts file paths/URLs, which goes beyond the annotation. However, it does not elaborate on other behavioral aspects like authentication or rate limits, but with readOnlyHint present the bar is lower.

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 two sentences but not front-loaded with a clear verb+resource. The first sentence mixes selection guidance with a list of informational items; the second is technical but tangential for a listing tool. It is not concise because the core purpose is obscured.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify whether the tool returns a list of available skills or details for a selected skill, and the mention of 'inputSchema' is confusing. An agent would struggle to anticipate the exact return shape or how to use the output.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially explains the 'skill' parameter by saying 'Set skill to inspect one workflow' and hints at selection by use case, adding meaning beyond the enum values. However, it does not explain the specific enum options or how the parameter affects the output, leaving gaps.

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 does not clearly state that the tool lists skills. It says 'Choose a Skill by use case and required materials' and 'Set skill to inspect one workflow,' which suggests selection/inspection rather than a simple list. The verb 'list' in the name is not echoed clearly, and it is ambiguous whether this returns a list of skills or details for one skill.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like check_skill or list_models. The note about 'Returned inputSchema' and accepting file paths/URLs provides some contextual usage, but it does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusion criteria.

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