skill_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that the tool lists path-free metadata and related data, but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, side effects, or any error conditions. The lack of annotations means the agent must infer safety from the 'List' verb.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, and lists the data categories without wasted words. Every part adds value.

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 has zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers what the tool does. It specifies the exact content of the list (metadata, digests, resources, shadowing counts) and the 'path-free' scope, making it complete for a listing operation.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are no parameters to describe. The tool's function as a listing operation is clear from 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 starts with the specific verb 'List' and names the precise resources returned: skill metadata, digests, resources, and shadowing counts. The qualifier 'path-free' distinguishes this from sibling tools like skill_read or skill_find, which likely require a path or search criteria.

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 verb 'List' implies when to use this tool: to enumerate all skills without a path. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives such as skill_find for targeted searches. The usage is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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