mcp_config_auditor__scan_skill_text

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 enumerates the detection categories, which is helpful, but does not state that the operation is read-only, that it does not modify the input, whether it makes network calls, or what the response format looks like. For a pure text-scanning tool the implicit behavior is safe, but the description stops short of explicit behavioral disclosure.

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 tight sentences: the first states what is scanned and for what; the second gives the key exclusion. Front-loaded with zero 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?

For a scanner with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the input expectation and detection scope sufficiently. It omits return-value format and any explicit non-destructiveness guarantee, but those are minor for a straightforward text-scanning tool called on provided content.

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 schema already documents both 'content' (Raw SKILL.md text) and 'label' (Optional filename shown in findings). The description adds the context that content should be one agent SKILL.md with YAML frontmatter and body, but does not elaborate on the optional label or any parameter formats beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('scan'), a specific resource ('one agent SKILL.md'), and enumerates the exact categories of findings (unrestricted allowed-tools, instruction override, credential file reads, literal secrets). The second sentence explicitly distinguishes it from the directory-scan alternative by noting when name collisions require that sibling, so an agent can tell it apart without inspecting schemas.

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?

Provides a clear usage condition: use this for a single SKILL.md, but switch to a directory scan when name collisions across skills matter. It does not mention other alternatives such as scan_file (for reading from disk) or scan_config_text, so an agent must infer those distinctions from sibling names, but the main exclusion is stated.

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