skills-master-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds some behavioral context by explaining the installation scope implications (user-level vs project-level) and listing valid agent values. However, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like what happens on failure, whether installations are reversible, or how the tool interacts with existing skills. The description doesn't contradict annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear opening statement followed by organized parameter explanations and a complete example. Each sentence serves a purpose, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first. Minor verbosity in parameter formatting prevents a perfect score.

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?

For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers parameter usage well but lacks information about return values, error conditions, or what constitutes successful installation. The annotations provide safety profile (non-destructive, non-idempotent), but the description doesn't fully compensate for the missing output schema by explaining expected results.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by providing concrete examples (e.g., 'anthropics/claude-code' for source, 'frontend-design,backend-dev' for skills), clarifying the format of comma-separated values, and explaining the boolean meaning of 'global' parameter with specific path implications. The description enhances understanding beyond the schema's technical specifications.

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 with specific verb ('Install') and resource ('skills from GitHub to AI coding agents'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'read_skill' and 'remove_skill' by specifying installation rather than reading or removal. The opening sentence provides immediate clarity about what the tool does.

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 usage context through parameter explanations (e.g., 'global' parameter defines installation scope), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remove_skill' or 'read_skill'. No explicit guidance is provided about prerequisites, error conditions, or when not to use this tool. The example shows typical usage but doesn't provide comparative guidance.

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