How to use this software

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds context beyond that by disclosing the 'one door' agent flow (discover, route, refuse) and the dual surface (agent chat vs. Worker/Flutter/local install), which helps set expectations for what the skill covers.

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 short and front-loaded, but the second sentence relies on jargon ('technical UI chrome', 'complete human software', 'counted download') that may confuse rather than clarify. It earns its place conceptually but is not as crisp as it could be.

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 no-parameter, read-only skill the description conveys the general purpose, but it leaves the 'discover, route, refuse' process unexplained and does not state what the returned content looks like. Given no output schema, a slightly more explicit account of what the agent will receive would make it complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description correctly spends no space on inputs.

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 opening 'Read how an agent uses Aziel Eliab software' gives a clear verb and resource, and the title 'How to use this software' reinforces it. The following 'one door — discover, route, refuse' is cryptic, but the core purpose is still identifiable and distinct from the runtime_bundle/fraggate siblings.

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 imperative 'Read how an agent uses...' implies this is the orientation/entry point for understanding the software. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over runtime_manifest, runtime_session_policy, or other siblings, nor give any when-not-to-use conditions.

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