list_project_skills

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that it lists filenames only (not contents) and indicates the default path, but it does not mention edge cases like missing manifests, recursion, or whether only .md files are returned. For a simple read-only list tool, this is minimally adequate.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the output schema exists and there is only one optional parameter, the description covers the core purpose and scope. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance relative to sibling tools and doesn't fully explain the manifest_path parameter, so it is not complete enough for seamless tool selection in a broader context.

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 has one parameter (manifest_path) with no description and 0% schema coverage. The description indirectly explains the default behavior of the parameter ('.skills/ by default') but does not explicitly state that manifest_path overrides this default. This adds some meaning but leaves the parameter's role implicit.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('markdown skill filenames in the project overlay'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_skills or get_skill by scoping to the project overlay. The default path (.skills/) adds helpful specificity.

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 makes it clear that this tool operates on the project overlay, which implies a distinction from global skill listing. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over list_skills or when not to use it, and no alternative tools are named.

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