check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels: it discloses the tool's full scanning behavior, detection of erroneous .source.json files, exclusion of specific skills, and the exact three output groups (managed, unmanaged, orphans). This gives the agent a complete understanding of what to expect without needing annotations.

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 compact paragraph, front-loaded with the main purpose, then providing specific detection rules and output categories. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or redundant information.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the output by listing the three returned groups and their meanings. It also clarifies the detection logic and exclusions, making the tool's behavior complete for an agent to invoke 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, which is appropriate. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 the tool performs a 'full scan of all workspaces' and returns 'cross-workspace skill sync status', clearly identifying the verb (scan/check), resource (workspaces/skills), and specific output categories. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'sync', which likely performs the sync, while this tool checks status.

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 implies when to use this tool (to check sync status) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It mentions it excludes 'default-skills managed watcher sync skills', which helps define scope, but lacks explicit 'use this instead of sync' guidance. However, the context of sibling tools provides some implied usage.

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