skillguard_verify

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions classification categories and bases on inputs, but does not explain the verification process, thresholds for each classification, whether external calls or storage occur, or error handling. Minimal transparency.

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 two concise sentences: one stating purpose and classification logic, one stating usage context. Efficient, front-loaded, no filler.

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?

The description mentions classification output but lacks return format details (e.g., JSON structure, possible errors). Given no output schema, more context about return values would be beneficial. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline is 3. The description reiterates the input categories (permissions, commands, description) but adds no significant meaning beyond the schema descriptions. No extra value added.

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 tool's purpose: to verify safety of AI agent skills/tools, classifying into SAFE, CAUTION, DANGER. It specifies inputs (permissions, commands, description) and is distinct from sibling tools (all search/detail-oriented).

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 states when to use: 'Use this to audit MCP tools, OpenAI functions, or any agent capability.' It lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but given the context, it is clear this is a pre-execution audit tool.

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