runrunit_install_cursor_skills

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool copies files into ~/.cursor/skills, uses os.homedir, supports dry-run preview, and allows scoping to specific skills or project directories. Missing details on what happens on conflicts or error handling, but the core behaviors are transparent.

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 a few sentences long, front-loaded with the main action. It efficiently conveys usage and key options. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but it's clear and avoids verbosity.

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 the tool's complexity (5 optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers the operation and parameter interactions well. However, it lacks information about return values (e.g., success message, counts) and potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing files). This is a gap, lowering completeness to a 3.

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% (all 5 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds contextual nuance: explaining the default for target ('global'), when project_root is needed, and that source_dir overrides auto-discovery. This goes beyond repeating schema information, so a 4 is warranted.

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 copies bundled Cursor skills to the user's Cursor skills directory, specifying the verb 'copies' and the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are unrelated (comments, tasks, workflows, Discord, etc.), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit use cases: 'onboard teammates or sync team SKILL.md workflows' and recommends 'Prefer dry_run:true first to preview.' It also explains parameter usage (dry_run, skill_names, target, project_root, source_dir). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.

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