Get Skill Usage

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

Annotations fully cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). The description itself adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already imply, such as what the usage stats include or how they are aggregated. It does not contradict annotations, but provides minimal additional value.

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 clear sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place; there is no verbosity or redundancy.

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 simplicity (one parameter, clear read-only purpose, full annotations), the description is mostly sufficient. However, it leaves ambiguity about what the usage statistics contain (e.g., call counts, tokens, time range) and could benefit from a brief clarification of the return data.

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% for the single parameter skill_id, so the schema already documents it adequately. The description adds no new semantic detail beyond referencing 'a given skill', which maps directly to the parameter. 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 (get), the resource (usage statistics), and the target (a given skill). It distinguishes itself from other usage-related siblings by specifying 'skill' as the resource, differentiating it from report_usage_by_model, report_usage_by_agent, etc.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other usage-tracking tools like lyzr_report_usage_by_agent or lyzr_report_usage_by_model. The description implies a use case but does not explicitly state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives, which is problematic given the large sibling list.

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