List Skills

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's main added value is enumerating return fields (name, description, latest version). It doesn't mention ordering, pagination, or whether results are scoped to the caller's team, which would matter if the list can be long.

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 short sentences with no filler: the first defines the resource and its returned fields, the second hands off to the install path. Everything is front-loaded and nothing repeats the title or annotations.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description usefully compensates by naming the returned fields and pointing at install_skill as the successor action. Only minor gaps remain (ordering/pagination, scope of the listing) for a simple read-only enumeration tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter meaning the description could add or omit. Calling convention is fully carried by the empty object schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List the Claude Code skills published to SystemDox") plus the filter that matters (installable ones), so an agent can distinguish it from publish_skill or the get_* siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with publish_skill, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

It states the follow-up path explicitly ("Use install_skill to install one"), which routes the agent to the correct alternative for the obvious next action. It doesn't say when not to use this tool or whether results are filtered by ownership/permissions, so it's clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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