list_skills

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden alone. It usefully discloses the scope (skills supported by 'this instance', i.e., instance-specific rather than global), but says nothing about permissions, pagination, ordering, or whether listing can fail. For a low-risk enumeration tool the gap is modest but real.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that fully states the action, the returned artifact, and the scope, with no 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 zero parameters and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it correctly confines itself to the operation and its instance-specific scope. It is nearly complete for a simple discovery tool, missing only permission/side-effect framing.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the 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 states a specific verb (list) and resource (skill names) with an explicit scope (this PermitMCP instance), so an agent immediately knows what it returns. It does not need to differentiate from siblings, which are entirely different operation types (jev_decide, agent_run, approve_action).

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or follow-up tools. The usage is only weakly implied by the name and the fact that it enumerates available skills.

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