Embedded skill

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the side effect of installing a skill directory and mentions the alternative grove://skill resource, but does not elaborate on overwriting, permissions, or what exactly gets written. This is useful but modest additional context beyond the 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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded ('Print the embedded agent skill...'), and the second sentence adds relevant information about an alternative resource without bloat.

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 is simple: one optional parameter, no output schema, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description explains both print and install modes, defines what the skill is, and notes an alternative access path. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100% and the install parameter already has a clear description ('directory to install the skill into (omit to print)'). The tool description only restates the conditional without adding new semantic details like formats, defaults, or edge cases. Baseline 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 verb-resource pair: 'Print the embedded agent skill (the SKILL.md workflow guide with frontmatter)', and clearly explains a second mode 'install it as a skill directory when install names one'. It distinguishes between print and install without ambiguity, and the reference to the SKILL.md guide makes the resource concrete.

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 the two modes: print by default, install when the install parameter names a directory. However, it does not mention any sibling tools or exclusions, so the agent receives no explicit routing guidance about when to prefer this tool over others.

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