aci_skill_outcome

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It goes beyond the schema by disclosing the side effects: 'Success raises its confidence; failure lowers it' and frames the tool as the library's self-curation mechanism. It doesn't mention return format or auth, but the key behavioral impact is clearly disclosed.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the behavioral effect, then the timing. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 simple two-parameter reporting tool, the description covers purpose, timing, and behavioral consequences. It lacks an explicit return-value statement, but that is not essential for invoking the tool correctly.

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 the schema already fully describes both parameters. The description adds the conceptual meaning of the 'success' boolean (raising or lowering confidence), but does not add format, constraints, or examples beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') with a clear resource ('whether a skill from the library actually WORKED') and explains its role in the library's self-curation. The purpose is unmistakable and is distinct from siblings like aci_save_skill or aci_find_skills.

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?

It gives explicit timing context: 'Call it after acting on a skill from aci_find_skills.' This is clear contextual guidance, though it does not explicitly list exclusions or compare itself to alternative tools.

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