skill_package_vertical_slice_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'does not mutate Unreal assets' and documents the return contract as 'JSON StructuredResult with outputs.report_path and evidence counts.' This gives the agent clear expectations for safety and output, though it does not describe side effects like file writes beyond the report_dir parameter.

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 well-structured with a clear summary sentence, a semantic breakdown of Args, Returns, KB link, and an example invocation. Each section serves a purpose; it is slightly longer than necessary but remains focused and scannable without redundancy.

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 (9 optional parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, what each parameter means, and a KB reference for deeper context. Missing details include potential error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., whether a journal must exist), and behavior when include_journal_entries is false, but these are minor relative to the rich provided information.

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 input schema has zero property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description's Args list provides the sole meaning for every parameter. It explains each parameter's role (e.g., journal_path as 'path returned by execution_journal_start', report_dir as 'Workspace-relative report output directory'), which is essential for correct 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 opens with a specific verb-object pairing: 'Package journal evidence into a production-style vertical slice report.' It then details exactly what it composes (execution journal entries, screenshots/logs/assets, verification results, follow-up checklist) and explicitly states it does not mutate Unreal assets, clearly distinguishing it from sibling mutation tools like set_actor_property or add_component_to_blueprint.

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 provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate ('Phase 6 outputs' closeout) and implies it is a packaging/reporting step. However, it does not explicitly name alternative reporting tools (e.g., insanitii_* reports) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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