scan_skill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses multi-layer analysis and a return grade A-F, but does not clarify whether the scan is read-only or if it saves state (the 'baseline' parameter suggests it might). Missing details on 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 two sentences: the first defines the purpose, the second lists analyses and output. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence earns its place.

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 tool has 3 parameters (1 required) and no output schema. The description covers the tool's purpose, types of analysis, and return format (grade A-F with findings), which is sufficient for an agent. The 'baseline' parameter is also explained in context.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the 'baseline' parameter saves the scan as a baseline for rug pull detection, and 'verbosity' controls detail level. This provides meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 performs a deep security scan of an OpenClaw skill, listing specific analysis types (prompt injection, code analysis, malware signatures, supply chain, rug pull). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_security or scan_packages.

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 implies use when scanning a skill but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, and the context does not exclude other related tools.

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