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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful context by stating the detection scope: '17 attack patterns / 65 regex signatures across 4 severity levels' and naming attack categories such as credential exfiltration and prompt injection. It does not disclose the safety profile (e.g., whether it is read-only), performance characteristics, or what the scan result looks like, so gaps remain.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by concrete detection details. There is no filler, and every sentence contributes to clarifying what the tool does and what it detects.

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 scanning tool with one simple input and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and detection scope but omits what the scan returns, such as findings format or severity reporting. Since no output schema exists to fill this gap, the description is only partially complete for an agent that needs to interpret results.

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%, so the single 'content' parameter is already defined as 'File or snippet to scan'. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying that the text can be an 'agent skill, MCP server source, or plugin', helping the agent understand acceptable input types.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Scan text — an agent skill, MCP server source, or plugin — for malicious behaviour before loading it.' This clearly defines what the tool does and what input it operates on. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from the sibling 'audit_skill_url', but the word 'text' and the tool name make the intended input type apparent.

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 phrase 'before loading it' gives a clear usage context: use this tool prior to loading an agent skill, MCP server source, or plugin. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this text-based tool versus the sibling 'audit_skill_url', nor any stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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