List skills

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring the safety profile, the description adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: that `markdown` is intentionally stripped from results and that Orchestra-managed skills are included in the set. It does not discuss pagination behavior or result ordering, but those are largely covered by the output schema.

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, both load-bearing: the first establishes scope and contents, the second prevents a wrong expectation about the response body. Nothing is redundant and the scope statement is front-loaded.

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, 100% parameter coverage, and readOnlyHint covering safety, the description only needs to add what structured fields cannot: the workspace scope, the Orchestra-managed inclusion, and the omitted `markdown` field. All three are present, leaving nothing essential missing.

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 every one of the six parameters (page, search, page_size, sync_status, orchestra_managed, X-Orchestra-Account-Id) is already documented in the schema, including the account-scoping nuances. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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 (List) and resource (skills) plus an explicit scope: the workspace the credential resolves to, including Orchestra-managed skills. It also differentiates itself from the single-item sibling by pointing to "fetch a single skill to read it" (get_skill), so an agent can tell the two apart without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear context for when this tool applies (browsing skills in the workspace) and names the alternative path for reading content ("fetch a single skill to read it"). It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or disambiguation against list_agent_skills, which is the closest potential confusion.

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