yaaif_skill_mcp_tool_catalog

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

As annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only says 'List...'. It does not mention output format, pagination, filtering, whether it returns full tool schemas, or what 'skill linking' entails operationally. Even though listing is likely side-effect-free, that is not confirmed.

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 short sentence, which is appropriately sized, but it includes the tool name in parentheses as '(skill_mcp_tool_catalog)', duplicating the tool name and adding little value. The core phrase is front-loaded, yet the parenthetical is wasted space.

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 has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must provide substantial context. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how the optional parameters affect the call, or what 'skill linking' specifically means, leaving an agent uncertain about how to invoke or interpret the 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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (agent_id, arguments, session_id). The agent is given no hints about what these parameters mean, whether they are required (they are optional), or how the 'arguments' object affects the result.

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 action ('List') and resource ('MCP tools') scoped to 'skill linking', which is clear enough to convey the tool's intended function. However, it does not differentiate this from similar siblings such as yaaif_mcp_tools_list or yaaif_skill_tools_check, leaving the distinction to be inferred from the name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that list or inspect MCP tools/skills, an agent has no explicit basis to choose this one over yaaif_mcp_tools_list, yaaif_catalog_overview, or yaaif_skill_tools_check.

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