Install built-in Claude Skills by copying them into ~/.claude/skills/ or a custom destination. List available skills or overwrite existing files when needed.
把内置 Claude Skills 复制到 ~/.claude/skills/（或 --dest 指定目录）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dest | No | ||
| list | No | ||
| force | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.3Output schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +trueOutput schema / propertiesRemoved value: -{
- "result": {
- "items": {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "type": "object"
- },
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "array"
- }
-}Output schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "result"
-]Output schema / titlePrevious value: -"skills_installOutput"New value: +"skills_installDictOutput"v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the write target (~/.claude/skills/), which is useful behavioral context for a filesystem mutation, but it says nothing about overwrite semantics implied by the `force` parameter, nor about what `list` does, nor about permissions/idempotency.
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?
A single short sentence with no padding; the action and destination are front-loaded. Only minor issue is referring to the parameter as --dest rather than the schema field name `dest`.
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 three-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and no schema descriptions, the description is too thin: it omits the behavior of two of three parameters and any overwrite/force semantics. The existence of an output schema excuses it from explaining return values, but not from the rest.
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 document the three parameters, but it only explains `dest` (and even then as a CLI-style --dest flag rather than the schema's `dest` name). `list` and `force` are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess.
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 concrete verb+resource+destination: copies built-in Claude Skills into ~/.claude/skills/ or a --dest directory. An agent can tell exactly what the tool does. It does not need to differentiate from siblings, which are all unrelated item/message/auth tools.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer this over any alternative (e.g. list mode vs install). The description only restates the action; nothing routes the agent's decision.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.