scan_skill_trust

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Build' which implies creating an inventory, but does not state whether it is read-only, whether it modifies files, what permissions are required, or what side effects might occur. This is a significant gap for a security-related tool.

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 redundant wording. It front-loads the main action and object, which is efficient. However, its brevity comes at the cost of missing essential details, so it is not well-structured for completeness.

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 the tool's security focus and the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what a 'local trust inventory' entails, what inputs are expected, what outputs are produced, or any context for safe usage. This is inadequate for a tool with even a single parameter.

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?

The sole parameter 'path' has no schema description and the description text does not mention it at all. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to clarify the expected format, meaning, or role of the parameter, making it impossible for an agent to correctly supply it without additional knowledge.

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 a specific action ('Build') and resource ('local trust inventory') for skills, MCP package manifests, and risky install scripts. It is distinct from sibling tools like scan_agent_config or check_tool_call_safety, though it does not explicitly name any sibling to differentiate itself from.

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 gives no indication of when to use this tool versus the alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent must infer the purpose from the verb and object alone, leaving ambiguity about when to choose this over scan_agent_config or map_security_coverage.

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