skills_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, and an output schema exists, so the safety and return-shape burden is not on the description. The description adds only that the items are bundled playbooks with a follow-up read path; it says nothing about ordering, count, or whether the list is static.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the follow-up pointer. No filler and nothing repeated from the annotations.

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?

With zero params and an output schema present, the description needs only to say what is listed and where to go next, which it does. It omits only minor context such as whether the set is fixed or whether every playbook requires additional inputs.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% and empty, consistent with 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (bundled SEO playbooks), and enumerates the playbook categories so an agent knows the payload before calling. It also distinguishes itself from skill_read, which retrieves a single playbook.

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?

"Read one with skill_read" explicitly routes the agent to the follow-up tool, making the list-then-read workflow clear. It stops short of stating when this tool should be skipped (e.g., if the playbook name is already known), so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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