Scan project for skills

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the title. Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and may have side effects (openWorldHint=true), but the description does not explain the nature of those side effects, whether it starts an async job, or what gets mutated. It carries some burden but fails to disclose key behaviors.

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 short but at the expense of completeness. It is not concise in a helpful way; it repeats the title and adds boilerplate HTTP info. There is no meaningful structure that aids understanding.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 required parameters with nested objects, output schema exists but unused), the description is severely incomplete. It misses all parameter semantics, output expectations, and operational details like whether the scan is synchronous or asynchronous.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain parameters. It does not mention any parameter names, types, or purposes. The 'body' parameter is complex with nested selections, but the description provides zero semantic information.

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 title and first line state 'Scan project for skills', which indicates the tool's main action. However, the description does not elaborate on what scanning means—e.g., whether it analyzes files, updates skill data, or returns a report. It does not distinguish this from sibling tools like pc_post_companies_by_company_id_skills_import.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are mentioned. The technical HTTP details do not help an agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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