yaaif_skill_tools_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool performs a verification, accepts server wildcards, and uses markdown content for allowed-prompts/allowed-resources. It does not explain response format, failure behavior, side effects, or whether it only reads, though 'Verify' implies a read-only check.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, with each sentence adding a distinct fact: what is verified, wildcard acceptance, markdown usage, and when to run. Minor ambiguity in 'Also use allowed-prompts / allowed-resources from markdown' keeps it from being perfectly clear, but there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no property descriptions, the description gives useful context but leaves important gaps: how markdown is supplied, whether the parameters are alternatives or complementary, and what the verification result looks like. It is adequate for basic use but not fully self-sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must add parameter meaning. It maps loosely to both parameters: 'explicit tools list' suggests the tools array, and 'allowed-prompts / allowed-resources from markdown' references the markdown parameter. However, it does not clarify whether markdown is a file path or content, whether both parameters are required together, or how tools and markdown interact.

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 ('Verify'), a clear resource ('skill frontmatter tools / allowed-tools'), and the verification target ('exist in local tools or external MCP catalog'). It also narrows the behavior with wildcard acceptance and the pre-create workflow. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling validation tools like yaaif_skill_validate, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 instruction 'Run before skill create' gives explicit workflow timing for when this tool should be used. It also clarifies what inputs are relevant, including the markdown-based allowed-prompts/allowed-resources. However, it does not state when not to use it or which sibling tools are alternatives.

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