validate_claw_skill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses what the validation covers (manifest structure, permission scopes, external dependencies, filesystem access, env vars, plugin isolation), but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, or whether it contacts external services.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a scannable bullet list of checks and a single usage sentence. Every line earns its place with no repetition or fluff.

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?

It gives enough to understand input and purpose, but with no output schema it should describe what the caller receives (e.g., pass/fail, findings list, score). The optional skill_code parameter and deeper analysis behavior are only in the schema, not integrated into the narrative.

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%, so the schema documents both parameters. The description adds context about what is being validated but no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's existing descriptions.

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 action (Validate) and a precise resource (CLAW skill manifest and configuration), with a list of concrete security checks. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling scan_claw_skill, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 states explicit use cases: before publishing to CLAUDE Hub and for CI/CD validation. It provides no when-not-to-use or direct alternative routing, but the intended contexts are clear.

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