Record when an agent skill starts for telemetry and audit, excluding raw prompts or sensitive data.
Record that a local agent skill started. Do not send raw prompt text or sensitive data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent | Yes | ||
| client | No | ||
| project | No | ||
| skill_id | Yes | ||
| session_id | No | ||
| skill_pack | No | ||
| metadata_json | No | {} | |
| skill_version | No | ||
| correlation_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations contain only a title, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the critical constraint 'Do not send raw prompt text or sensitive data', which is valuable. However, it does not indicate whether this is a write operation, whether it has side effects, or any other behavioral traits. The minimal disclosure leaves 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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences with no redundant information. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the sensitive-data warning is a relevant addendum. It is appropriately sized for the tool's scope.
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 9 parameters and minimal annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter semantics, usage scenarios, or how it relates to sibling telemetry tools. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still lacks essential context for correct invocation.
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%, and the description provides no parameter explanations. While some parameter names like 'agent' and 'skill_id' are self-explanatory, fields such as 'metadata_json', 'correlation_id', and 'skill_pack' are not elaborated. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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 states a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('local agent skill started'), clearly indicating the telemetry event it captures. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling telemetry tools like skill_completed or skill_failed, but the word 'started' makes the intent unambiguous.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the sibling telemetry tools or specify conditions for invocation. The only extra instruction is a data-handling constraint, not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.