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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior: the check is private, it returns a verdict, a score and a sha256 'ready for signing', which tells the agent this is an analysis/audit step. However, it does not state whether any files are written, what permissions are needed, or how the privateness is enforced.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the enumerated checks, then the return contract. No filler, though the return-value sentence overlaps with the existing output schema.

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?

The output schema exists so verdict/score/sha256 need not be re-explained, and the description is adequate for a single-path audit tool. It is still thin on the one input parameter and on prerequisites, leaving gaps for an agent deciding whether to call 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?

One required parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not. It never says what 'path' points to (a directory containing SKILL.md? the file itself?) or what format is expected, beyond the implicit mention of SKILL.md.

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 (проверить/check) and resource (SKILL.md) and enumerates exactly what is inspected: structure, triggers, secrets, prompt-injection, broken links. The purpose is unambiguous, but it never distinguishes itself from similarly-named siblings such as trust_report or verify_work.

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 word 'Приватно' (privately) hints at a local/offline check, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative (e.g. why trust_report instead). The agent must infer when this tool applies.

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