recipe_import

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

The description only states 'Installs a SKILL', which indicates a write operation. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain any side effects (e.g., whether it replaces an existing skill), required permissions, or the state after installation. This lack of detail results in low transparency.

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 very short, consisting of a single incomplete sentence. While brevity is valued, the truncation suggests it is not intentionally concise but rather cut off. Essential information is missing, and the structure does not effectively front-load key details. This is under-specification rather than concise communication.

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 the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must provide complete context. It fails to explain what 'install' means, what the user should expect as output, how to obtain the skill_token, or any prerequisites. The truncated ending further contributes to incompleteness.

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 input schema has zero parameters, yet the description instructs the user to 'pass the skill_token from their recipe_export'. This is a direct contradiction, as there is no parameter to accept that token. The agent receiving this tool definition would be misled into thinking a token parameter exists, making this dimension score very low.

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 explicitly states that the tool 'Installs a SKILL someone shared with you', which clearly identifies the verb (install) and resource (shared skill). It also references 'recipe_export', distinguishing it from other recipe tools like recipe_install or recipe_discover. However, the truncation at the end slightly reduces clarity, as it appears to be an incomplete sentence.

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 that this tool is used when someone shares a skill via recipe_export, providing some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like recipe_install. Given the numerous sibling recipe tools, more explicit guidance would improve the score.

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