haops_list_skills

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses that deprecated skills are excluded by default and that filtering is available. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, or any side effects; for a list tool, this is adequate but not detailed.

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 that front-load the purpose, then provide context on what skills are and filtering. It is efficient, though could mention that all parameters are optional for completeness.

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 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and filtering. Missing return format (e.g., array of objects) is a minor gap, but overall it is sufficient for a list tool with clear parameters.

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 description coverage is 100%, and each parameter is well-documented in the schema. The description reinforces filtering but does not add new meaning beyond the schema; thus baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'List agent skills (system-wide + optionally project-scoped)' and defines skills as reusable, role-tagged knowledge units. This distinguishes it from siblings like haops_read_skill (single skill) and haops_create_skill (creation).

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 lists filters (scope, category, role, project, search) and notes deprecated exclusion by default. Context implies this is for finding skills, contrasting with haops_read_skill, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.

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