List saved skills

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context — that skills are parameterized prompt templates that dispatch video/ugc/image jobs — which helps an agent judge relevance. It does not mention result volume, pagination, or ordering, but with an output schema present the return shape is documented elsewhere.

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 sentence with the action front-loaded and a compact clarifying gloss attached. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of the title.

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 no-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies enough to call it correctly. The one real gap is the unresolved overlap with the near-named sibling 'list_agent_skills', which is exactly the ambiguity a description should resolve.

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 and the baseline of 4 applies. The scope word 'account's' is the only semantic constraint and it is stated.

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 the account's saved skills') and adds a parenthetical definition of what a skill is (reusable parameterized prompt templates that dispatch video/ugc/image jobs). That is clear on its own, but it does nothing to distinguish it from the sibling 'list_agent_skills', which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. With 'get_skill', 'run_skill', 'list_agent_skills', and 'create_skill' all present, the description gives no routing guidance and leaves the agent to infer that this is the enumeration step before run_skill.

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