sumo_qa_check_external_skill_installed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing return behavior: it yields the first matching path, or a negative-case object {"installed": false, "skill", "scope"} when absent — valuable since there is no output schema.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the return contract. The inline JSON fragment is slightly awkward but nothing is wasted.

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 low-complexity read tool with no output schema, the description covers the core return shape adequately. Gaps remain around the 'auto' scope default, project-vs-global precedence, and whether path results are absolute — details an agent would want before relying on the result.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It partially does: 'skill' is shown to mean a SKILL.md skill name, and 'scope' is implied to cover project vs global locations. However, the default value 'auto' and the precedence rule when both project and global matches exist are never explained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: locating an installed external SKILL.md file, scoped to Codex/Claude/agents paths. It is clearly distinct from siblings like sumo_qa_install_external_skill and sumo_qa_preview_external_skill in intent, though it never names those siblings explicitly to sharpen the distinction.

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 purpose implies a pre-check before install/execute, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no pointer to the obvious alternative (install_external_skill or search_external_skills). Usage is inferable from the name and description rather than stated.

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