install_skill

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs multiple steps (fetch, scrape, enhance, package, upload), enhancement is mandatory and improves quality from 3/10 to 9/10, the process takes 20-45 minutes, and it supports various LLM platforms with auto-upload detection. However, it does not detail side effects like file creation or overwriting, permissions needed, or error scenarios.

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 four sentences, front-loading the workflow and key facts. Every sentence adds value: workflow steps, mandatory enhancement, time estimate, platform support, auto-upload condition. It could be more structured (e.g., bullet points), but it is appropriately sized and avoids fluff.

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 annotations, 0% schema coverage, and 7 unrequired parameters, the description is insufficient. It explains the workflow and some behavioral aspects but fails to document what each parameter controls, return values (though an output schema exists), prerequisites, or error handling. The agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly without additional knowledge.

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 explain parameters. It only explains the 'target' parameter (auto, claude, gemini, openai, markdown) and mentions config generally. The other parameters (config_path, destination, auto_upload, unlimited, dry_run) are not described at all. This leaves significant gaps for the agent to understand how to use the tool correctly.

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 is a complete one-command workflow: fetch config → scrape docs → AI enhance → package → upload. It uses specific verbs and resources, and differentiates from sibling tools like enhance_skill, package_skill, upload_skill by presenting itself as a composite of those steps.

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 clear context: it is a full installation workflow, enhancement is mandatory, it takes 20-45 minutes, supports multiple LLM platforms, and auto-uploads if an API key is set. While it implies when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., for a complete install rather than just enhance or upload), it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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