agent_list_skills

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond those flags by enumerating accepted skill file formats and specifying the JSON return structure with keys success, skills_dir, count, and skills.

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 dense but well-organized: a one-sentence purpose, a bulleted list of skill types, and clearly labeled Args/Returns. Every sentence earns its place without redundant filler.

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?

With only two optional parameters, a return shape already summarized, and rich annotation coverage, the description fully covers the tool's behavior, skill definitions, and expected output. The agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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% and the description's Args section primarily restates what the input schema already says (override skills_dir, optional glob pattern). The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema, yielding the baseline score.

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 opens with 'Discover and list skills available in the configured skills directory', a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes this discovery tool from siblings like agent_run_skill or agent_read_file by defining what counts as a skill.

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 tool's purpose is clear from 'Discover and list skills', and the sibling set reinforces when to use it (e.g., before running a skill with agent_run_skill). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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