skills.flightCheck

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: offline/local-only execution, zero AI cost, and that findings carry blocking severity. It implies a non-destructive read (a scan), but says nothing about how results are surfaced or whether anything is persisted, so it stops short of full behavioral coverage.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and the enumerated checks, then the input options, then the usage constraint. No filler or repetition; the parenthetical list earns its space by defining scan scope.

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 two-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it checks, how to supply input, and the severity model ('blocking findings'). It does not describe the return shape beyond that, but enough is present to call it 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 0% with two undocumented params, so the description must compensate — and it does by clarifying the either/or intent: 'Pass a file path or raw content.' It leaves open whether both may be supplied simultaneously or which takes precedence, but the core semantics of both parameters are conveyed.

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 ('offline safety scan for a skill or prompt') and enumerates the scan dimensions (prompt injection, exfiltration, secrets, destructive commands, wildcard tools, loop hazards, clarity, token budget). This clearly separates it from siblings like skills.lint and skills.validateFormat, which handle formatting/lint concerns rather than safety scanning.

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?

'Blocking findings should be fixed before shipping' gives a clear usage context (pre-ship gate), and 'Local-only, zero AI cost' removes hesitation about running it. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with skills.lint/skills.validateFormat or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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