skill_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only list operation, which is inherently safe, but it doesn't disclose additional traits such as pagination, ordering, or permission requirements. The agent_id schema description adds some context (returns agent-specific and team-global skills), but the main description remains sparse.

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 a single sentence of ten words, highly concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no excess 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?

For a simple list tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate for selection and invocation. It could mention the return format, but for a list operation the expected output (array of skills) is obvious. Overall, it provides enough context for an agent to use it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'optionally filter by agent' adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema already explains the parameters, a baseline score of 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 the tool's function: listing skills bound to a team. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('skills'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like skill_get and skill_search by specifying the team-scoping and optional agent filter.

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 provides clear context: use this tool to list skills associated with a team, optionally filtered by agent. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use it.

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