list_skills

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only enumeration and discloses the returned field set, but says nothing about ordering, pagination/result limits, or how filtering behaves when a tag matches nothing.

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 zero waste: the core enumeration behavior and returned fields come first, the optional filter second. Nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition is nearly sufficient — it even enumerates the response fields. The remaining gap is behavioral detail around result size and filter matching rather than anything structural.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single 'tag' parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate — and it does, explaining that the filter is optional and giving four concrete example values ('ai', 'web', 'cloud', 'supply-chain'). It stops short of stating match semantics (exact vs. substring, case sensitivity).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List every security skill') and names the returned fields (name, description, tags), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_skill or skills_for_task, leaving that distinction to inference.

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?

'Optionally filter by tag' implies the two usage modes (enumerate all vs. narrow by tag), which is a useful hint. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over get_skill (single lookup) or skills_for_task, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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