skill_contract-guardian

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

No annotations provided. Description discloses core functions and cost per call, but lacks details on limitations (e.g., input format expectations, result structure, error handling) that could help an agent anticipate behavior.

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?

Description is concise with a single sentence listing key functions and pricing. No wasted words, but could benefit from structured sections for readability.

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 no output schema, the description should clarify return format. It lists functions but not how results are presented. Adequate for a simple skill, but lacking detail on the output.

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 one parameter 'query' described as 'user input for this skill'. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states the tool is an AI contract review assistant (合同审查助手) and lists specific functions: identify risk clauses, extract key info, track expiry dates. This distinguishes it from sibling skills which focus on other domains (e.g., ad-copywriter, game-audio).

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?

Usage is implied: use for contract review. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no comparison to sibling skills despite being in a list of specialized skills.

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