report_skill_issue

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 says submissions go to a 'local review queue,' which hints at persistence, but it does not explain whether the action is irreversible, whether authorization is required, whether duplicates are handled, or what side effects occur. The description is too sparse for a write/report tool.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and includes concrete examples of accepted issues. It is concise and free of filler, though it is somewhat minimal and does not use the available space to add parameter or behavior details.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, 2 required, no annotations, and no schema-level descriptions. The description covers the tool's general purpose but not the required inputs, the optional inputs, or the expected behavior after submission. An agent asked to call this tool would have to infer the roles of message, contact, and skill_id from names alone. The output schema may cover return values, but other context needed for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does mention categories that map to the enum values (broken_link, wrong_tag, license, usage_problem), but it does not explain the meaning or usage of 'message,' 'contact,' or 'skill_id.' The category list largely duplicates what is already visible in the schema enum.

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 action ('submit'), a target resource ('local review queue'), and enumerates the issue types (broken links, wrong tags, licenses, usage problems). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_skill_card, check_compatibility, and doctor, which perform reads or diagnostics rather than issue reporting.

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 implies that this tool should be used when a user wants to report skill issues such as broken links or incorrect tags. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, does not mention alternatives, and does not address whether certain issues should go to doctor instead. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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