scan_skills

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the in-place SQLite index update, a <100ms performance trait, and explicitly states it is read-only on source skill files. It could add more on failure modes or permissions, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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 compact, uses clear section labels (Behavior, Usage Guidelines, Parameters), and leads with the main purpose. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 simple one-parameter maintenance tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, usage, and parameter semantics adequately. It does not describe the return value or success/failure feedback, but given the tool's simplicity and the lack of a meaningful output schema, the missing detail is minor.

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 the schema already fully documents the workspace parameter. The description adds a small reminder that workspace is an absolute directory and clarifies the omission behavior, matching what the schema already states. Baseline 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 states a specific action ('Scan filesystem directories', 'rebuild the local SQLite index') and a clear resource (skill files across detected AI coding tools). It distinguishes itself from sibling query tools like route_skill and list_skills, so an agent understands its maintenance role.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('after adding or editing skill files') and names alternatives for querying ('Use route_skill or list_skills'). This gives the agent clear routing criteria without inference.

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