install_skill

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

With no annotations, the description falls short on disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions writing config files and parameter defaults but does not explain what happens when force=False and the skill already exists (no overwrite, likely fails or leaves unchanged). It also omits side effects like irreversibility or whether project modifications are limited to config files. The explanation of file paths for different targets is helpful.

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 well-structured and concise. It starts with a one-sentence summary, followed by a single sentence explaining the mechanism, then a clear bullet-style breakdown of each parameter with defaults and options. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy, and the information is front-loaded.

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 tool with 3 non-required parameters and no enums, the description covers the core behavior and parameter meanings well. However, it lacks details on error handling, what happens on conflict without force, and any prerequisites (e.g., needing b123d skills installed elsewhere). The presence of an output schema partially relieves the need to describe return values, but edge case transparency is missing.

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%, but the tool description provides thorough parameter semantics for all three parameters. For 'skill', it lists the two options ('drawing', 'modeling') with their effects. For 'target', it enumerates four agents with their corresponding file paths. For 'force', it explains the default and its purpose (overwrite). This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's type and default values.

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's purpose: 'Copy a b123d workflow skill into the current project.' It specifies the action (install/copy) and the resource (workflow skill), and the elaboration about writing config files confirms the intent. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'script' or 'execute' which are for running or writing code, not installing pre-built skills.

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 scenarios where installation is appropriate or when to choose one skill over another, nor does it exclude other tools like 'script' for similar tasks. The context of 'installing for future sessions' is implied but not explicitly stated as a usage condition.

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