skills.install

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing side effects. It only states the copy action and dest parameter, but omits the effects of 'list' and 'force', whether existing files are overwritten, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap for a tool that writes to disk.

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 single front-loaded sentence with no redundancy or filler. It states the core operation immediately, earning its place without waste.

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 tool with three parameters, no annotations, and zero schema descriptions, the description is underspecified. It fails to explain two parameters, does not mention overwrite behavior or prerequisites, and relies on an output schema that the description itself does not reference.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions '--dest', leaving 'list' and 'force' entirely unexplained. An agent cannot infer what those parameters do or when to set them.

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 uses a specific verb '复制' (copy) and clearly identifies the resource (built-in Claude Skills) and the destination (~/.claude/skills/ or --dest). No sibling tool covers skills installation, so it is unmistakably distinct.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when the user wants built-in Claude Skills installed locally. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it lacks the exclusionary guidance of a 5.

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