list_skills

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

The description implies a safe read operation ('list') with no side effects. While no annotations exist, the description does not explicitly state read-only behavior or lack of side effects, but it is clear enough. It could be improved by noting it returns all skills or any pagination, but for a simple list it is 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?

Two succinct sentences efficiently convey purpose, usage, and relation to sibling tools. No unnecessary words, and key information is front-loaded.

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, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, when to use it, and how it fits with other tools (get_skill). No gaps remain.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is fine since none exist. It correctly focuses on output semantics instead.

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 lists bundled resume/JD tailoring skills with short descriptions. It distinguishes itself from get_skill (full content) and other listing tools like list_jds and list_resumes. The verb 'list' is specific and the resource 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?

Explicit guidance on when to use: before tailoring a resume, especially to read 'fabricators'. Also recommends get_skill for full content, providing a clear alternative and workflow context.

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