Content
61%Weight 40%Scale 1-5Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is well-structured and actionable, with concrete tool sequences and real query examples. Its weaknesses are redundant content across sections, missing validation checkpoints for destructive operations, and no use of separate reference files despite a sizable inline reference.
Suggestions
Add explicit validation/confirmation steps before destructive operations (e.g., 'Before DATADOG_DELETE_DASHBOARD, confirm the dashboard_id with the user and verify via DATADOG_GET_DASHBOARD').
De-duplicate the Known Pitfalls and Quick Reference sections against the per-workflow Pitfalls blocks to tighten token usage.
Move the detailed parameter reference and Quick Reference table into a separate references file linked from the body to improve progressive disclosure.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient domain-specific guidance, but the Quick Reference table and Known Pitfalls section repeat content already covered in the per-workflow Pitfalls blocks, adding tokens that could be trimmed. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete tool sequences, named parameters, and real query-syntax examples (e.g., 'avg:system.cpu.user{host:web01}'), giving mostly executable guidance with only minor gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Numbered tool sequences and an ACTIVE-status setup checkpoint are present, but destructive/batch operations (DELETE dashboard, mute, downtime) lack explicit validate-before-confirm checkpoints, capping workflow clarity at 3 per the destructive-ops rule. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The single file is well-organized into clear sections with no nested references, but ~230 lines of inline reference material (detailed params and the full Quick Reference table) could be offloaded to a reference file, leaving minor organization gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |