list_skills

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context: skills are deduplicated and shared across resumes (no resume_id on items), pagination uses total_count and items, and an error is returned if resume_id is not found. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise with four sentences, each adding unique value: purpose and filtering, deduplication note, pagination structure, and error behavior. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers pagination and error handling. It could benefit from mentioning default ordering, but overall it sufficiently guides the agent for a list/filter tool among many siblings.

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter details beyond what the schema provides, except implicitly linking query to title matching.

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 badge skills (technologies, tools, languages) and optionally filters by resume or keyword query. It also notes that it absorbs the old search_skills tool, effectively differentiating it as the combined list/search tool for skills.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (listing/filtering skills) and mentions limitations like deduplication and error handling. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid it or suggest alternatives like get_badge_skill for a single skill.

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