claude_skills_status

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It explicitly says 'read-only', describes what it reports, and specifies operating relative to cwd. It could mention return details, but overall transparency is good.

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 sentences, front-loaded with core function, no wasted words. Each sentence adds value: purpose, safety (read-only), scope (cwd), and reference to CLI mirror.

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 no output schema, the description does not explicitly describe the return format but implies a report listing symlinks and exclude-block entries. With only 2 parameters, it is mostly complete, though output details are slightly lacking.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it reports symlinks and managed exclude-block entries from prior claude_skills_sync runs, uses read-only, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (clean/sync) by focusing on status reporting.

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 mentions read-only and relative to cwd, and hints at CLI mirroring, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide exclusions. Usage context is clear but lacks comparative guidance.

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