skill_list_all

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what is returned (summary metadata, excluding body), where the data comes from (skills directory), and the effect of the markdown_output flag. It does not mention potential side effects, but as a listing tool, this is acceptable.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, description, args, returns, usage). It is concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, and the description covers its return values and usage. It lacks details on edge cases (e.g., no skills found, error handling) or explicit statement of read-only nature, but these are minor for a listing tool. Overall, it is sufficiently complete 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?

The single parameter markdown_output is fully explained: 'If True, return formatted markdown string instead of JSON list (default: False)'. Since the schema provides no description for this parameter, the description effectively compensates with clear semantics and default behavior.

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: 'List available skills with brief metadata (excluding body)' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting the exclusion of the markdown body and pointing to get_skill_detail for full content.

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 usage context: 'Use this to present a catalog of available skills' and mentions an alternative (get_skill_detail for full content). It implies when not to use (when full content is needed), but lacks an explicit 'when not' statement, so it falls just short of a 5.

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