skill_mcp_validate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, what happens on inconsistency (only partially covered by the 'mode' parameter in schema), or any side effects. The description is too terse to be 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 a single sentence that effectively front-loads the core action. No unnecessary words or redundant information. It is appropriately sized given the simplicity of the tool.

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 parameters with schema descriptions, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It conveys the primary task but lacks details about return values, error handling, or how it integrates with sibling tools like 'skill_validate'.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain the purpose of each parameter or how they affect behavior.

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: automatically verify consistency between Skill-defined tool dependencies and actual MCP server tools. It uses specific verb ('verify') and resource ('tool dependencies'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'skill_validate' which may have a different scope.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., skill_validate, skill_consistency_check). There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is inappropriate. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and purpose.

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