gateway_telemetry_skill_failed

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

Annotations provide only a title, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a crucial guideline: 'Send error class, not stack traces or secrets', which tells the agent what to include and avoid. It does not describe side effects, return values, or whether the call is synchronous, but the security note is valuable beyond any structured field.

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 two concise sentences with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by a security guideline. Every word earns its place, and the structure is ideal for quick scanning.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description does not explain required parameters (agent, skill_id), the meaning of optional fields, or any return/side-effect behavior. The only additional context is the security note about error class. For a tool with 13 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is inadequate for an agent to correctly populate all fields.

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% for 13 parameters, yet the description only hints at error_class ('Send error class') and omits explanations for agent, skill_id, duration_ms, session_id, and other fields. With no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent to guess meanings.

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 verb 'Record' and the specific resource 'a local agent skill failed', which distinguishes it from sibling telemetry tools like started and completed. It also specifies the payload focus (error class) and an explicit security constraint, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's core action.

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 phrase 'Record that a local agent skill failed' implies the use case (on skill failure) and the sibling naming pattern makes the contrast with started/completed obvious. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, though the context is sufficient for an agent to infer.

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