recipe_install

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits like system modification, permissions, reversibility, or side effects. It only says 'installs onto this Mac' without elaboration on what installation entails.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. No unnecessary words.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too brief for a state-modifying tool. It fails to clarify how the 'id' is obtained or passed, and does not explain what happens upon installation (e.g., idempotency, overwrite behavior).

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 properties, but the description refers to an 'id' parameter, implying the schema is missing this required input. Schema coverage is 100% only because the schema is empty, but the description contradicts the schema structure.

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 installs a community SKILL by id, sourced from recipe_discover, enabling recipe_run to use it. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like recipe_discover (discovery) and recipe_run (execution).

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 a workflow: discover (recipe_discover) → install (this) → run (recipe_run). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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