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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key trait: the operation is asynchronous, returning a queued scan rather than a completed result, and it enumerates the terminal statuses (passed, failed, incomplete, error) that end the polling loop. It omits idempotency, permission requirements, and failure behavior on unparseable repos.

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 sentences, zero waste: the first establishes the action and return value, the second gives the polling instruction. The critical information is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, describing the return as 'the skill and the queued scan' plus the terminal statuses is enough for an agent to complete the start-then-poll workflow. The remaining gap is that no description explains what a scan actually inspects, which a caller may want when deciding to invoke it.

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 100%, so url, ref, path and organisation are already documented in the schema, including the conditional guidance for organisation. The description contributes only the constraint that the URL must point at a public GitHub or GitLab repository, which the schema also states, so 3 is the appropriate baseline.

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 ('Starts a scan of a skill'), scopes it to 'a public GitHub or GitLab repository', and names both halves of the response payload. The follow-up sentence separates this tool from get_skill, which the agent is told to use for reading results.

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 'public' qualifier implicitly excludes private repositories, and the description explicitly routes result-reading to get_skill until a terminal status is reached. It stops short of stating preconditions such as authentication or what to do if a scan is already queued for the same ref.

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