skills_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'List' signals a read-only, side-effect-free enumeration and the tool takes no parameters, which is sufficient to establish safety, but nothing is said about whether the catalog is static or fetched remotely, or how large it may be. The presence of an output schema covers the return shape.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the resource front-loaded and zero filler. It could be marginally tighter by naming the follow-up action, but there is no waste to cut.

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 zero-parameter enumeration tool with a full output schema and no annotations, this is nearly complete — the agent knows what it lists and what it returns. The only gap is the missing link to skill_read as the obvious next step after a listing.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies; no parameter detail is warranted or missing.

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 ('List') plus a concrete resource ('Plausible Analytics operational skills and playbooks'), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling skill_read, but the 'list' vs 'read' naming plus the description make the distinction easy to infer.

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 implies this is the discovery entry point (browse available skills before reading one), but it never says when to call it or names skill_read as the follow-up. Usage is only implied, not stated.

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