Github List Skills

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that each item includes a name and URI, which gives some insight into the output structure but does not reveal any behavioral quirks (e.g., pagination, ordering). For a simple read-only listing, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the main action ('Lists the workflow guidance') and then providing a key relationship to github_get_skill. The mention of '#414' is cryptic but does not add unnecessary length. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, read-only) and the existence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what it does and how to use it. It mentions the skill name and URI, which are likely covered in the output schema. It does not mention pagination or filtering, but these are not critical for a list-all tool and are likely in the output schema.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none, and the schema is empty. No additional parameter semantics are required.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to list the workflow guidance bundled with the server. It also connects to the sibling tool github_get_skill by mentioning the name that tool takes and the skill:// URI, effectively distinguishing itself from that retrieval tool. The verb 'lists' is specific and the resource (workflow guidance) is well-defined.

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 gives explicit usage direction: 'Read the one covering the task before starting it.' This implies the tool should be used to discover which skill to fetch via github_get_skill, providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the guidance is actionable.

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