skill_list

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

Despite being named 'list,' the description explicitly discloses a non-obvious side effect: view_count and last_viewed_at are updated before the list is returned. It also explains why the curator inventory is deliberately excluded in order to avoid making every skill look recently consulted. This goes well beyond the sparse annotations and is consistent with readOnlyHint=false.

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 well structured: it front-loads the core purpose, then provides a compact output template, and then explains two important behavioral caveats. Every sentence adds value, and the format block is a concise way to convey the return shape without verbose prose.

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 tool with one optional boolean parameter and an output schema, the description covers the non-obvious parts: exact row format, field meanings, side effects, and exclusion behavior. An agent has enough information to call it correctly and interpret its results effectively.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention include_archived at all. The output format does show state=archived, which gives a weak inference about what the parameter might do, and the schema title 'Include Archived' is self-explanatory, but the description itself adds no explicit parameter guidance. It fails to fully compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List skills with telemetry.' It further clarifies by giving the exact row format and field semantics, and explains that the curator inventory is excluded, which distinguishes this from a naive inventory audit. This is much more than a restatement of the tool name.

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 when this tool is appropriate by warning that each returned row is a visibility event that updates view_count and last_viewed_at, and by noting the curator inventory is excluded so audits cannot inflate recency. However, it never explicitly names alternatives among siblings or states 'use X instead.' The usage context is clear but the exclusion/alternative guidance is only implicit.

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