list_skills

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, yet it only states the basic list/filter behavior. It does not mention pagination semantics (page/limit), result ordering, or what the response contains, which are important for an agent calling the tool correctly.

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 one tight sentence with no filler and the primary action front-loaded before the optional filter. It earns its place.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits pagination semantics, return shape, and category matching behavior. An agent cannot reliably choose correct page/limit usage or know what to expect.

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 description coverage is only 33%, with page and limit left undocumented, and the description does not fill that gap. It merely restates the category filter that already appears in the schema, adding no detail about pagination parameters or exact-match behavior.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List all skills', and the optional category filter defines the operation's scope. It is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like get_skill (single item) and create_skill/update_skill/delete_skill (mutations).

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 phrase 'List all skills' gives an implied use case, and the category filter suggests when narrowing is appropriate, but the description never names alternatives such as get_skill for a single skill. The when-not/alternative guidance is left to inference from sibling names.

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