skill_stats

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes the action as read-only ('查看') and lists what the tool returns, including an extracted workflow recipe. It would benefit from caveats about whether stats require existing run/feedback data, but the core behavior is 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 one focused sentence and every phrase adds information about the tool's purpose or output. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary explanation.

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 no annotations, no output schema, an undocumented parameter, and no usage caveats. The description tells the agent what the tool reports but not how to identify the skill or whether the key is required, making confident invocation difficult.

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?

The schema describes a single 'key' parameter with no explanation, and the description never mentions the parameter, its format, its purpose, or how it should identify a skill. With 0% schema description coverage, the description does almost nothing to help an agent construct a valid invocation.

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 states a specific verb ('查看' / view), a specific resource (skill stats), and enumerates the exact metrics reported: Wilson success rate, Elo, quality score, latency cost, and workflow recipe. This clearly separates it from siblings like skill_get, skill_inspect, or skill_run.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over siblings such as skill_get or skill_inspect. The usage is only implied: use it when you need skill evaluation metrics rather than skill content or execution.

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