List agent skills

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the behavioral profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying the return fields, but no additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, data freshness) are disclosed. With strong annotations, this is appropriate.

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 consists of two concise sentences that cover purpose, filtering, output, and usage. Every sentence is essential, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is clearly front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (list with optional filters), the description provides sufficient information: it names the output fields, mentions usage context, and works well with the schema and annotations. No critical details are missing for an agent to use it correctly.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter adequately described (e.g., 'Filter by category', 'Free-text search'). The description mentions category filtering but does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 the tool lists agent skills from a catalog with optional category filtering, and specifies the exact fields returned (slug, title, description, category, chain_slugs). It also provides context for usage ('before start_skill_pipeline'), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like get_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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use before start_skill_pipeline to find the right skill slug'), which is helpful guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives (e.g., get_skill for a single skill), leaving a slight gap in completeness.

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