yield_skill

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

With no annotations present, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states MODE (mixed), AUTH, and CREDITS, but lacks details on side effects of write operations (e.g., irreversibility, permission requirements). Score 3 reflects moderate transparency with gaps.

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 structured with clear sections and is relatively concise. However, the first sentence and the 'WHEN TO USE' section are somewhat redundant, preventing a top score. Score 4.

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 complexity of 5 sub-actions and the absence of an output schema, the description provides an overview but lacks details on return values, error handling, or prerequisites beyond OAuth. Additional context would be needed for full completeness. Score 3.

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%, with both parameters well-described in the schema. The tool description adds general context (MODE, OUTPUT) but does not enhance parameter-specific meaning, leading to a baseline score of 3.

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 the domain (yield optimization group management and forecast governance) and lists specific sub-operations. However, it does not provide a single focused verb+resource and lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools, resulting in a score of 4.

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 includes dedicated sections for MODE, AUTH, CREDITS, OUTPUT, and WHEN TO USE, offering clear context for usage. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, justifying a score of 4.

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