Content
78%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 tight, well-structured overview that names its tools, gives concrete invocation examples, and lays out a clear workflow. Its main limitation is minor redundancy with the description and placeholder-driven workflow examples that keep actionability and conciseness just below top marks.
Suggestions
Replace the docs_fetch "[url]" placeholder in the workflow with a concrete example URL to match the specificity of the tool-selection table.
Trim the Differentiating from enterprise Glean section to a one-line pointer to using-glean, since the description already conveys this boundary.
Add a brief note on what to do when docs_search returns no relevant results (e.g., refine terms or fetch a known landing page) to give the workflow an explicit recovery path.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean body that avoids explaining what Glean is and uses compact tables and examples; the Differentiating section partly restates the description, a minor redundancy keeping it below 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete tool table maps needs to bare tool names with copy-paste invocations like docs_search "API authentication"; the docs_fetch "[url]" placeholder in the workflow is a minor gap versus fully specified examples. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear four-step Search->Review->Fetch->Cite sequence with the review step acting as a checkpoint; this read-only skill needs no destructive-operation validation, so it stays at 4 rather than 5 for lack of explicit error-handling guidance. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with well-organized sections (Tools, When to use, Tool selection, Workflow, Query tips, Differentiating) and no need for external reference files, meeting the simple-skill exception for a top score. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |