Skill Scan

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds context about scanning for trust, findings, and provenance, which aligns with annotations but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond the 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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no extraneous words or redundant information, making it highly efficient.

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?

With a simple parameter set, full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the tool's purpose and scope, though it could briefly mention the scanning depth or what 'findings' encompass for greater clarity.

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 input schema covers the single 'path' parameter with a description, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any further explanation about the parameter's usage or formatting, so it meets the baseline without enhancement.

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 scans skill and instruction files for trust, findings, and provenance. It uses a specific verb and resource, and differentiates from siblings like 'skill_trust' and 'skill_verify' by highlighting the comprehensive scanning purpose.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative sibling tools such as 'skill_trust' or 'skill_verify'. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent without decision support.

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