scan_claw_skill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by stating the tool runs locally, understands skill packaging, and performs a defined set of security checks. The explicit list of threat patterns gives substantial behavioral detail. It does not describe the return behavior or whether the scan is asynchronous, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 longer than average but well-structured: purpose, scope, checks, usage instruction, and examples are clearly separated. The bulleted check list is informative rather than filler. A minor reduction could improve conciseness, but the structure earns its length.

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 fully explains the input and what the scan looks for, but it omits what happens after the scan: there is no mention of a scan ID, async behavior, or that results are retrieved via sibling tools like get_scan_results, get_security_score, or get_remediation_guide. With no output schema and no annotations, this missing workflow linkage is a significant gap for an agent deciding how to use the result.

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 schema covers the single parameter fully, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete example URL patterns and clarifying that both hub links and direct download links are valid. This gives the agent useful format guidance beyond the plain schema text.

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 an Open CLAW skill or plugin from CLAUDE Hub before installation, with a specific verb and resource. It enumerates concrete security checks, making its function obvious. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling validate_claw_skill, which could overlap in intent.

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 gives clear timing guidance: 'Use this BEFORE installing any CLAW skill.' It also provides example URL formats for the input. It does not mention when NOT to use it or compare against alternatives like validate_claw_skill, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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