full_quality_report

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description usefully explains why: sonar=scan triggers an actual scan, check_vulnerabilities performs an online OSV lookup, and save_to writes a file to disk. That is genuine added context tying behavior to the non-read-only, network-touching profile. It stops short of describing cost, duration, or what happens when SonarQube is unreachable.

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 verdict-producing purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, then each parameter gets a tight clause with no filler. The mixed Chinese/English phrasing is compact but slightly reduces scannability for an English-oriented agent.

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 five-parameter orchestration tool with no output schema and no annotation detail on returns, the description supplies the verdict semantics (pass/warnings/fail) and the detail/save_to distinction for full output. What remains thin is the meaning and accepted form of the required 'target' parameter and the behavior when a sub-check fails.

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 0% and the schema has no enums, so the description carries the full burden — and it does most of the work, defining the sonar mode values (auto/scan/off) that the schema leaves as a bare string, plus the meaning of check_vulnerabilities, detail, and save_to (.md path). Only 'target' is left implicit (inferred as a skill when applicable), which is the one meaningful gap.

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 names a specific composite deliverable: a one-stop quality report combining skill structure (when target is a skill), dependencies, local scan, and SonarQube, producing a pass/warnings/fail verdict. That is far more than restating the name. It does not explicitly say how it relates to the sibling tools it aggregates (analyze_dependencies, code_quality_scan, sonar_*), so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Framing it as a 'one-stop report' implies you reach for it when you want the whole picture rather than individual checks, and the sonar mode values (auto/scan/off) give conditional guidance for that parameter. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus calling analyze_dependencies, code_quality_scan, or sonar_run_scan directly, and no stated prerequisites.

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