skill_list_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses recursive enumeration, exclusion of SKILL.md, and the exact return shapes (list of dicts vs markdown string). It does not cover error behavior for missing skills, but for a read-only listing tool this is acceptable and significantly above baseline.

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 organized into clear sections (function_purpose, Description, Args, Returns, Usage) and is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is slightly verbose at ~150 words for a two-parameter tool, but every section adds value and nothing feels redundant.

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 description covers purpose, parameter semantics, return formats, usage flow, and points to the companion read tool. An output schema exists (per context), but the description is self-sufficient even without it. This is complete for a listing tool.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates: 'name: str The hyphen-case name of the skill whose assets to list' and 'markdown_output: bool If True, return formatted markdown string instead of JSON list (default: False).' This adds meaning beyond the bare type/default in the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List non-SKILL.md files within a skill folder (recursive).' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like skill_list_all (lists skills) and skill_read_asset (reads file contents). The scope (excluding SKILL.md, recursive) is also explicit.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Call before reading assets to present available files to the agent or user.' It also names the alternative for reading content: 'For reading actual content, use skill_read_asset() with the returned path.' This is strong when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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