Skill Scan Corruption

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the concrete corruption targets being checked, which is real context beyond the schema, but it never states that the scan is read-only/non-mutating or what happens on findings—important traits for a tool an agent is told to run after every write.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the mandatory-run rule plus the detection list follow immediately. Efficient, though the parenthetical iron-rule framing is slightly decorative.

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 scan tool with a full parameter schema and an output schema, the description covers what matters: what it does, the checks it performs, and when to invoke it. It only lacks the read-only/behavior-on-findings note, a minor gap given the existing structured fields.

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%: both `paths` (directory expansion behavior) and `skills_root` (base for relative paths) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline of 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 names a specific verb+resource (skill file corruption scan) and enumerates exactly which corruption classes it detects (formfeed, real tab, mid-line CR from JSON escape interpretation). It is clearly distinguishable from skill_backup/skill_log_decision, though it never contrasts itself with the closest sibling, skill_validate.

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?

It gives an explicit, strong trigger: 'iron rule — must run after every write/revision'. That tells the agent exactly when to invoke it. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or how it relates to skill_validate, so no exclusions or alternatives are offered.

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