Generate optimization suggestions for a Skill file, or run a safety-only scan to detect issues without changing the file.
优化指定 Skill 文件，生成优化建议。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| check_only | No | 仅做安全扫描不优化，默认 false | |
| skill_path | Yes | Skill 文件路径（必填） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects and behavior. It mentions 'optimize' and 'generate suggestions', but does not clarify whether it modifies the file in place, whether changes are reversible, whether it requires special permissions, or what the safety scanning/check_only behavior is. This ambiguity is significant for a tool that likely mutates files by default.
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 a single concise sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the core action and target. It could be slightly more informative without becoming wordy, but as written it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description carries a heavier burden. It does not explain the return value format, whether the tool modifies files, how check_only changes behavior, or how this tool relates to siblings like 'refine'. The information provided is enough to guess intent but not enough to invoke the tool safely and correctly.
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 input schema. The description itself adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is 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?
The description clearly states the verb ('optimize') and the resource ('specified Skill file'), and adds that it generates optimization suggestions. It is easy to understand what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related siblings such as 'refine' or 'audit_file'.
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 no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only implied usage is the generic 'when you want to optimize a Skill file', but there is no explicit routing or context to help an agent select it confidently among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.