mcp_config_auditor__scan_skill_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the four detection categories, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about output/findings structure, whether the scan is purely read-only, or any safety/authorization profile. For a scanner this is adequate but not rich.

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 front-loads what is scanned and what is detected; the second immediately handles the alternative routing case. No wasted words.

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 description is complete for selecting and invoking the tool: it names the input type and the detection targets. Because there is no output schema, it could say more about the findings format, but the label parameter's schema note ('shown in findings') partially covers that gap.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or format details beyond implying that 'content' is raw SKILL.md text, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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: 'Scan one agent SKILL.md (YAML frontmatter plus body)'. It also enumerates the exact issue classes it detects, and its closing sentence distinguishes it from the directory-scan sibling by noting when name collisions require the latter.

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 clearly frames this as a single-file text scan and explicitly names the alternative for cross-skill name collisions: 'Name collisions across skills require a directory scan.' It does not explicitly contrast with scan_file or scan_config_text, but the single-SKILL.md scope is clear enough to guide selection.

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