report_skill_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the proof is permanently recorded and affects quality scores, promoting honesty. But it lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or side effects beyond recording.

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 5 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and return value. It includes necessary usage guidance and parameter hints. A bit verbose in the middle sentences but overall efficient.

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 no output schema, it sufficiently describes the return object and the permanent record. It addresses prerequisites by warning not to call before using the skill. It covers the essential aspects for an agent to use it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context: slug format, status implications for quality scores, and conditional requirement for error_message. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, justifying a higher score.

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 the tool reports the outcome of using a skill, generating a verifiable proof. It uses specific verbs and a clear resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like verify_proof, which might also deal with proofs.

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?

Explicitly says to use after every skill invocation and not before using the skill. It also mentions building trust score and helping the community. However, it doesn't describe alternatives or when not to use.

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