guardentry_invoke_skill

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a significant trait: read vs. write skills behave differently, with writes being queued for approval. It does not detail return formats or post-approval behavior, but this is a substantial disclosure for a two-sentence description.

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 sentences long, directly addresses purpose and behavior, and includes examples. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

While the description explains read vs. write behavior, it lacks any mention of the response/return format, which is important given there is no output schema. It also does not reference sibling tools like list_pending or action_status, which could be needed to track queued write skills. This leaves a notable gap for a tool that can trigger asynchronous actions.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds value by providing example skill_id values and indicating that 'input' varies by skill, which helps the agent understand the dynamic nature of the input parameter.

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 tool's function: 'Invoke a single GuardEntry skill directly' with concrete examples (compliance_check, risk_analysis, scan_vulnerabilities). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like invoke_agent, which target agents, and list_skills, which only lists skills.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (to invoke a skill directly) and important behavioral distinctions: read skills execute immediately, write skills are queued for approval. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'directly' phrasing and examples differentiate it from agent invocation.

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