scan_skill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does list the types of analysis performed, which adds value, but it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, requires network access, or how it handles a potentially malicious skill. The description implies safety by recommending use before installation, but it is not explicit about side effects or permissions.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then specifies the exact categories of analysis and the usage timing. Every word adds value with no 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?

With an output schema present and a single well-documented parameter, the description provides sufficient context for most use cases. It lacks explicit mention of prerequisites like network access or authentication, but these are minor gaps given the output schema and clear purpose.

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 has 100% coverage with a clear description for skill_url (including an example). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, 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 clearly states the tool's function: analyzing an AI agent skill for specific security issues (prompt injection, malware, OWASP LLM Top 10). It uses a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('AI agent skill') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like network_scan or scan_secrets by focusing on skills.

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 phrase 'BEFORE installing it' provides clear temporal guidance for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context of sibling tools and the explicit pre-installation timing gives adequate context.

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