list_skills

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds the return structure (description, tool allowlist, optional sub-agent) and the filesystem path, which is useful beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate response content.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the action and resource, the second describes the entry structure. No redundancy or fluff, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with rich annotations, the description is sufficient: it states the source, the scope, and the composition of each returned entry. No output schema exists, but the description covers the essential return information.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and no additional parameter explanation is needed; the description's focus on what is listed 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 user-installed skills (workflows) from a specific path, and distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_user_tools or list_automations by specifying the resource type ('skills') and the source location.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to see installed skills) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it, nor does it mention alternatives. The context is clear but exclusions are nonexistent.

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