Content
57%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 a dense, concrete operational reference with specific tools, parameters, and pitfalls, but it suffers from internal duplication, lacks validation/feedback loops around batch and destructive operations, and keeps all reference material in a single inlined file. The placeholder Example section also weakens actionability.
Suggestions
Add validation/feedback loops to batch and delete workflows (e.g., verify expected record counts before/after bulk operations, confirm deletions) to lift the workflow_clarity cap.
De-duplicate by folding the "Quick Reference" table and "Known Pitfalls" section into the Core Workflows, or move them into a separate reference file.
Replace the placeholder "Example" section with a concrete worked example showing actual tool calls, inputs, and expected responses.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly an efficient operational reference with no concept over-explanation, but the "Quick Reference" table and "Known Pitfalls" section substantially duplicate content already presented in "Core Workflows". | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete tool sequences, exact parameters, error codes (422, 403), and limits (10 records, 100 pageSize), but the "Example" section only echoes the description rather than showing a worked tool-call example. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Numbered tool sequences carry [Prerequisite]/[Optional] markers, but batch (CREATE_RECORDS) and destructive (DELETE) workflows lack validation/feedback loops, capping clarity at 3 per the rubric's feedback-loop guidance. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections are well-organized in a single file, but no references/scripts/assets bundle exists and reference material (Quick Reference table, formula syntax) is inlined rather than split into navigable files. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 13 / 20 Passed |