get_install_command

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description simply says 'Get the Claude Code install command for a skill' and offers no detail on side effects, return format, error handling, or permissions. The behavior is as ambiguous as a generic getter.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. There is no extraneous information or filler. It is optimally concise for the simple operation it describes.

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 annotations or output schema, the description is the only context provided. It explains what the tool does but omits crucial details such as what the install command output looks like, whether the skill must already exist, or any usage constraints. The minimal description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and return value.

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 already provides a complete description of the 'name' parameter with an example ('beginner-japanese'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the high coverage. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific action ('Get') on a specific resource ('the Claude Code install command for a skill'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_skill, which likely retrieves skill details rather than the install command. The verb and object are precise and non-tautological.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and one-line description. No contextual hints about prerequisites or situations are given.

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