List skills

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, and the description's trailing "Read operation." merely restates that. The one genuinely additive detail is the access-scoping of results ("skills the caller has access to"), but pagination and ordering behavior remain unaddressed beyond the schema.

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 short sentences that front-load the core purpose before the filter list. The trailing fragment "Read operation." is redundant with the annotations and adds a small amount of waste.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage, comprehensive annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential scope and filterable dimensions. It omits any mention of paging or result volume, which the schema partially compensates for.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in structured form. The description only groups the filter dimensions at a high level and adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource ("List skills the caller has access to") and scopes the result set to the caller's permissions, which clearly separates it from create_skill/update_skill/delete_skill. It stops short of naming an alternative tool explicitly, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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 enumerates the available filtering axes (team, name, creator, related MCP server, agent), which implies when the tool is useful. However, these are the same facets already documented in the schema, and it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or exclusion against siblings.

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