scan_skill

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden. It discloses that the tool is static-only, never executes code, and is safe to use on malicious targets. It lists the exact patterns checked and the return verdict types (clean/suspicious/dangerous).

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?

Single, dense paragraph that efficiently conveys purpose, usage, safety, patterns, and output. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description details the return format (verdict with flagged files). It covers what the tool scans, how it works, and its safety. The single parameter is well-explained. No missing context.

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 only parameter (target) has 100% schema coverage, and the description adds practical examples (e.g., https://github.com/owner/repo or ./my-skill) and clarifies it can be a local path or git URL, adding value beyond the schema.

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 the verb (statically scan), the resource (Claude Code skill, plugin, or MCP server), and the scope (for malware patterns before installing). It distinguishes itself from execution-based scanners by noting it is static-only.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool (before installing) and contrasts with execution ('never executes the target code'). No sibling tools exist, so no alternative comparisons needed. It provides clear context for usage.

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