reporting_skill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only mode, OAuth 2.0 requirement, zero credits, and internal orchestration behavior. However, it does not mention error handling or limitations, which would make it a 5.

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 clear sections (MODE, AUTH, CREDITS, OUTPUT, WHEN TO USE, Example, NOT). Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 tool with only 2 simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, authentication, cost, output format, usage guidance, and relation to sibling tools.

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 value by explaining that 'goal' is a plain-language description and provides an example of how it is used (e.g., selecting dimensions/metrics automatically), which goes beyond the schema's basic description.

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 it is a 'high-level reporting orchestration' tool that accepts natural language goals and returns formatted reports. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'reporting' tool by noting it is a higher-level orchestrator.

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 explicitly includes a 'WHEN TO USE' section with an example and contrasts with the sibling tool: 'NOT the same as reporting'. It also shows how the tool internally calls other tools.

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