gateway_telemetry_skill_completed

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

The verb 'Record' makes clear this is a telemetry write operation, which is useful since no readOnly/destructive annotations are present. However, it does not disclose details around authentication, idempotency, or what telemetry side effects may be visible elsewhere.

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 a single clear sentence with no filler or repetition. The key action and success condition are front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 12-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain which optional telemetry fields to populate, how it relates to skill_failed, or what a correct invocation should include beyond the two required parameters.

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 description coverage is 0% with 12 parameters, and the description provides no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain required fields like agent and skill_id or optional fields like duration_ms, session_id, or metadata_json, so the agent gains no semantic help from the 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 uses a specific verb ('Record') with a precise resource ('a local agent skill completed successfully'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from its telemetry siblings such as gateway_telemetry_skill_started and gateway_telemetry_skill_failed.

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 embeds the trigger condition: record when a local agent skill completed successfully. This gives the agent a clear context for selecting this tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it.

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