install_skills

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It reveals that the tool uses workspace auto-detection, global cache, and version tracking, and it implies only missing skills are installed. However, it does not specify whether existing skills are overwritten, if network access is required, or any side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by key behavioral details. Every sentence contributes information without redundancy or excessive length.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the core purpose and some behavioral details, but it lacks comprehensive coverage of side effects, prerequisites, or return behavior. It is adequate for basic understanding but not fully complete for an installer 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 fully covers both parameters with descriptions, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining that workspace auto-detection can override projectPath and that the config can be project or global, which enriches the meaning of configPath and projectPath beyond 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 clearly states the action ('Install'), the resource ('missing project skills defined in project/global skills.config.json'), and the destination ('.agents/skills'). The mention of 'missing' and 'version tracking' differentiates it from sibling tools like sync_skills or check_missing_skills.

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 implies when to use the tool: to install missing skills based on configuration. It provides context about workspace auto-detection and global cache but does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions. This is clear but lacks direct exclusions, so a score of 4 is appropriate.

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