flag_skill

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that flags are reviewed by moderators and may lead to removal or downgrading, and that a confirmation is returned. While it doesn't mention rate limits or irreversibility, the key behavioral aspects are covered.

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 four sentences that front-load the core action and return value, then progressively add usage guidance and outcome detail. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose without redundancy, achieving maximum conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity and full schema coverage, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage, and behavior. It lacks explicit mention of potential side effects like duplicate flags or rate limits, but for a simple reporting tool, the provided information is adequate 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with clear meanings for slug, reason (enum), and details. The description adds minimal extra value beyond stating it returns a confirmation. It does not explicitly note that 'details' is optional, though the schema implies it. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 action 'report a problematic skill' and specifies the resource (skill) and destination (moderation team). It distinguishes from siblings like 'review_skill' by listing specific problematic categories (prompt injection, malicious, etc.), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly provides when to use the tool (encountering specified issues) and when not to (skills that simply don't meet needs, directing to leave a review instead). This clear differentiation from 'review_skill' offers excellent guidance for the AI agent.

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