skill_record

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

The description explains behavioral effects (bumping counters, emitting events for 'wrong' outcome) beyond annotations. Annotations already indicate non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, and the description adds useful context.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear opening purpose statement followed by bullet-like explanations of the two main parameters. Every sentence adds value.

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 description covers all parameters and their behavioral implications. Given the presence of an output schema, it does not need to explain return values. It could mention error conditions or authentication requirements, but is largely complete.

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?

With schema coverage at 0%, the description provides critical parameter details: explains the four kinds and three outcome values, and notes that outcome only applies to 'use' kind. This adds significant meaning absent from the schema.

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 records usage telemetry for a mirrored skill, specifying it bumps counters and timestamps. It is precise but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like skill_manage or skill_list.

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 usage after skill interactions and provides guidance on marking 'wrong' outcomes, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to other tools.

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