claude_review_env

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior for the write path: the exact install destination (~/.claude/skills/code-review) and the non-destructive guarantee that it never overwrites a user-managed skill there. It stops short of describing what the check reports, failure modes, or any auth/network requirements.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: the check scope is front-loaded and the conditional write behavior follows immediately. No filler and no repetition of the name or schema.

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?

Covers the tool's dual read/write nature well for a single-parameter tool, but with no output schema the description never indicates what a check returns or how failures surface, which an agent would want when acting on the result. Minor gap rather than a serious omission.

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%, so the description must supply the meaning of installSkill. It does: installSkill=true triggers a (re)install of the bundled skill, its default-off semantics are implied by the conditional phrasing, and it clarifies the scope/side effect of the flag rather than merely restating a boolean.

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?

States a specific verb ("Check") plus four concrete resources it inspects: the Claude Code CLI installation, the code-review skill, auth/gateway setup, and helper tools (git/gh). The diagnostic/environment nature is clear, though it never contrasts itself with the sibling tools claude_code_review and claude_review_followup, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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?

Usage is implied (a pre-flight/environment diagnostic) and the second sentence gives a clear condition for the optional write path: set installSkill=true to (re)install the skill. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to the sibling review tools, leaving sibling routing to inference.

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