skill:import

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It hints that calling first returns a guide, but it does not explicitly state that the tool does not perform the final import, nor does it disclose side effects, permissions, or auth needs. The name 'import' could mislead agents into thinking the tool actually imports, making transparency moderate.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the main action and includes key usage guidance. Every word adds value, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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?

Given no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description mostly covers what the tool does and when to use it. However, it leaves ambiguity about the 'import guide' content and next steps. It is fairly complete but could mention that the tool returns instructions rather than performing the import.

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?

There are no parameters in the schema, so schema coverage is 100% vacuously. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description provides useful context about the tool's purpose, which is sufficient.

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 imports a local skill as a global app, distinguishing it from project-level skills by recommending a native directory. The verb 'import' and resource 'local skill' are specific, and the contrast with project-level usage makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'For project-level skills, use your agent's native skill directory instead' and 'Call this first to get the import guide.' This tells the agent when to use this tool vs. alternatives and what to expect after calling it.

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