list_global_skills

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 pagination behavior, which is useful, but it does not mention additional behavioral aspects such as read-only nature, sort ordering, or whether only published skills are included. The description is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the action and scope. Every word earns its place, and it is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (two optional parameters, an output schema exists), the description is fairly complete. It identifies the resource and pagination. However, it could be more complete by explicitly distinguishing from search_skills and noting any default behavior, but it is sufficient for a basic 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'pagination,' which adds meaning to the 'limit' and 'offset' parameters by indicating their role. However, it does not explicitly define these parameters or their syntax, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 purpose: to browse the global (public) skill store with pagination. It uses a specific verb ('browse') and resource ('global skill store'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_my_skills'. The term 'global (public)' differentiates it from personal skill lists.

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 for when to use this tool: to browse the public skill store, with pagination. It implies a distinction from search_skills (browse vs. search) and list_my_skills (global vs. personal), but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives. This constitutes clear context without explicit exclusions.

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