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

The description goes far beyond the 'readOnlyHint' by detailing the execution behavior, such as writing files to a temporary directory and deleting them after scanning. It also lists the specific possible verdicts, providing comprehensive behavioral context.

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 extremely dense and efficient, successfully combining the tool's scope, operational mechanism, safety guarantees, and expected outcomes into a single, logical paragraph without unnecessary filler.

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 that the output is not fully structured in a schema, the description provides all necessary context by detailing the expected return components: a verdict from a defined set (e.g., CLEAN, CAUTION), the findings, and a permalink.

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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds crucial semantic meaning to the 'filename' parameter, clarifying that it 'sets how it is analysed (default SKILL.md)', which aids agent decision-making regarding optional arguments.

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 purpose is explicitly stated: to scan agent skill or instruction files. It clearly defines the resource (skill/instruction files) and its function (static analysis), making its distinction from package or configuration scanning tools immediately clear.

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 critical usage guidelines by stating that the analysis is 'Static analysis only; nothing is run.' It also specifies which file types are acceptable (e.g., SKILL.md, tool.json), which prevents misuse.

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