skill_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read operation ('List') but does not mention the optional project_path filter or describe the return format. It adds minimal context beyond the tool's name, so a mid-range score 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 is a single, complete sentence: 'List all registered skills'. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no filler or redundant content. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description provides the core purpose but omits key context such as the optional filtering behavior (implied by the parameter) and the return value shape. Given the simplicity, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 100%: the only parameter, project_path, is fully described in the input schema as an 'Optional project path filter'. The description itself adds no parameter information, and the baseline for high schema coverage is 3.

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 'List all registered skills' uses a specific verb (list) and resource (registered skills), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like skill_get (retrieves a specific skill) and skill_recommend. The scope is explicit ('all registered'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 that this tool is for listing all skills, which serves as basic usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this rather than skill_get or other sibling tools, nor does it exclude any cases. No alternative tools are mentioned.

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