List an agent's skills

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description's added value is the disclosed failure mode (404 when the agent is absent from the credential's workspace) and the shape of each returned item (name and description). That is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though pagination behavior is left unaddressed.

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?

Two sentences, no filler: the capability and its returned fields come first, and the error condition second. Every clause 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no elaboration, and the description still covers scope and the 404 failure mode. The one omission is any mention of pagination semantics for a list endpoint that supports paging, though the schema covers the parameters themselves.

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 100%, so page, page_size, agent_id and X-Orchestra-Account-Id are all fully documented in the schema. The description adds only an oblique reference to credential/workspace resolution, which is already spelled out on the account-id parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the skills attached to an agent') and even names the payload fields, which distinguishes it from the global list_skills and the mutating set_agent_skills. It never names those siblings explicitly, but the scoping to an agent is clear from the wording.

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 the read use case (fetch an agent's attached skills) and flags the 404 condition for a missing agent, but it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and does not point to list_skills or set_agent_skills as alternatives.

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