dashclaw_skill_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as a static scan returning findings and a passed boolean. It does not explicitly state whether it has side effects (though the name implies read-only), nor does it mention authorization or rate limits. The behavioral description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 that are front-loaded with the action and immediate guidance. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action and inputs, the second explains output and post-condition. No wasted words.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, output fields (findings with severity/file/line, passed boolean), and required action. It does not detail findings structure further, but that is acceptable for a scan tool. Slightly more detail on return formatting would improve it.

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 50% (only 'files' has a description). The description adds minimal semantic value by referring to 'contents of an untrusted skill', linking both parameters together. However, it does not clarify the expected format of 'skill_name' or expand on 'files' beyond the schema's own description. It partially compensates but falls short.

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 purpose: 'Run a static safety scan against the contents of an untrusted skill before loading it.' It identifies the verb (scan), resource (skill contents), and context (before loading). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which perform a safety scan.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('before loading it') and provides actionable guidance: 'If passed=false, do NOT load the skill — show the findings to the operator.' It does not mention alternatives, but the use case is specific and no obvious alternative exists among siblings.

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