skills_list

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description does not contradict them. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the fact that it lists items; no additional details such as return format, rate limits, or scope limitations are provided. For a simple list operation, this is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 consists of three short, front-loaded sentences that first state the primary action, then explain the use case, and finally suggest the next step with skill_read. Every sentence earns its place; no unnecessary details or redundancy.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and a simple purpose, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and how to proceed after listing. It covers the essential context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description is not expected to explain any parameter syntax or semantics. Baseline of 4 for 0 params applies.

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 a specific resource ('available analytical skills (playbooks) for Google Search Console'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_available_dimensions or list_available_metrics, and from skill_read which fetches a full playbook.

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?

It clearly states when to use the tool ('Use this to learn proven field combinations and how to interpret GSC data for specific SEO tasks') and points to an alternative for the next step ('Fetch the full playbook with skill_read'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is clear enough for selection.

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