skills_install

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

The core behavior is transparent: it copies built-in skills to a destination. However, it does not disclose the effects of the 'force' flag (e.g., overwriting existing files) or the 'list' flag (e.g., listing without copying), and with no annotations the description carries the full burden for safety info.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the primary purpose. It contains no filler and is appropriately sized for its simplicity.

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 and no annotations, yet the description only covers the main copy action. The 'list' and 'force' flags likely alter behavior significantly but are omitted, leaving the tool under-specified for an agent to use all features correctly.

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 offers zero descriptions for three parameters, and the description only hints at 'dest' via '--dest'. The 'list' and 'force' flags remain completely unexplained, so the description provides insufficient compensation for the low schema coverage.

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 a specific action: copying built-in Claude Skills to a target directory (~/.claude/skills/ or a --dest path). It uses a concrete verb and resource and is easily distinguished from all sibling tools, which concern auth, items, messages, or media.

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 (when installing/copying built-in skills) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. Since no sibling tools serve a similar purpose, the context is adequate but not richly explanatory.

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