list_skills

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but no explicit statement about side effects or performance characteristics (e.g., pagination, ordering) is given. For a simple enumeration, this is sufficient, but it doesn't add any context beyond the obvious.

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?

A single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then specifies the output (canonical IDs). No filler or redundancy.

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 parameterless listing tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the action, scope (all skills), and the nature of the result (canonical IDs). An agent has enough to call it correctly without further clarification.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema already fully documents this (coverage 100%). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are none. Per the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4, and nothing reduces that.

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 action (list), resource (skills), and what is returned (canonical IDs). It distinguishes itself from siblings like read_skill (which targets a specific skill) and list_skill_resources (which presumably lists resources of a skill) by focusing on the top-level enumeration of 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 implies this is the entry point for discovering skills before using read_skill, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives. There's no exclusion or alternative naming, though the sibling set makes the role obvious. It's adequate but relies on inference.

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