claude_skills_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares 'READ-ONLY — changes nothing', explains the cwd-relative behavior, and mentions mirroring the `omni-dev` CLI. It doesn't detail output structure or edge cases, but for a read-only status tool this is strong 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?

Three succinct sentences: the first front-loads the primary outputs, the second adds safety/use-case, and the third covers operating scope and CLI parity. No redundancy or filler.

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 read-only status tool, the description covers purpose, usage context, safety profile, and operating scope. The schema fully documents parameters. While no output schema exists, the description's statement of what is reported (symlinks, exclude-block entries) conveys the return content adequately.

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 100%, so both parameters (`format`, `worktrees`) are fully described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning or hints, so the 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Report the skill symlinks under `.claude/skills/` and the managed exclude-block entries'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing `claude_skills_sync` and `claude_skills_clean`, making its unique purpose clear.

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?

It explicitly provides usage guidance: 'the safe way to preview before calling `claude_skills_sync` or `claude_skills_clean`', naming the relevant alternatives and stating when to use this tool. It also adds the cwd-relative operating scope, giving concrete context.

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