list_skill_resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It states the tool lists resource files, which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose behavior such as pagination, sorting, error handling for invalid skill IDs, or what the response structure looks like. It only says 'list', which is a minimal behavioral statement.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and subject. It is concise with zero wasted words, listing examples of resource types for clarity.

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 simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is somewhat minimal. It does not mention the return format (e.g., array of file paths/names) or any edge cases (e.g., what happens if the skill has no resources or the ID is invalid). Given no annotations and no output schema, more detail would improve completeness, but it is not critically inadequate for a straightforward 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 schema provides 100% description coverage for the 'id' parameter ('Canonical skill ID'). The tool description adds no additional meaning to this parameter beyond what the schema already states. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'resource files such as references, scripts, and assets' for a skill. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_skills (which lists skills themselves) and read_skill_resource (which reads a single resource). The scope is explicit and 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 usage: call this when you need to enumerate the resources of a specific skill. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_skills or read_skill_resource, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. No explicit routing to alternatives is given.

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