Content
35%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill covers tool design for agents comprehensively but suffers significantly from verbosity — it over-explains concepts Claude already knows (why vague descriptions are bad, what consolidation means) and restates core principles multiple times across sections. The actionability is moderate with some useful examples but too much conceptual framing. The content would benefit greatly from aggressive trimming to perhaps 40% of its current length, moving detailed explanations to reference files.
Suggestions
Cut content by at least 50% — remove explanations of why obvious anti-patterns are bad (e.g., the 10-line breakdown of why `def search(query)` is poor), eliminate repeated statements of the consolidation principle, and trust Claude to understand implications from concise statements.
Move the detailed subsections (Architectural Reduction, Tool Description Engineering, Response Format Optimization, Error Message Design) into separate reference files and keep only actionable summaries in the main skill file.
Replace the conceptual `optimize_tool_description` pseudocode with a concrete, executable example — either a real testing script or remove it in favor of a concise description of the feedback loop pattern.
Add explicit validation checkpoints to the Tool Selection Framework (e.g., 'Test: present 10 representative queries and verify each routes to exactly one tool with no ambiguity').
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is extremely verbose at ~300+ lines, repeatedly explaining concepts Claude already understands (what tool descriptions are, why vague names are bad, how agents select tools). Many sections restate the same principles in slightly different ways (consolidation is explained multiple times). The 'Poor Tool Design' example spends 10+ lines explaining why `def search(query)` is bad — something Claude can infer instantly. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides some concrete examples (well-designed tool docstring, MCP naming format, optimize_tool_description function) but much of the content is conceptual guidance rather than executable steps. The code examples are illustrative rather than copy-paste ready — the optimize_tool_description function calls a fictional `get_agent_response` and is more pseudocode than actionable code. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The Tool Selection Framework provides a numbered sequence but lacks validation checkpoints or feedback loops for the design process itself. The 'Tool-Testing Agent Pattern' describes an iterative feedback loop conceptually but doesn't provide clear validation steps. For a skill involving tool design decisions that can significantly impact agent performance, explicit validation/testing checkpoints are missing. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references external files (architectural_reduction.md, best_practices.md) with clear 'Read when' guidance, which is good. However, the main file itself is monolithic — the detailed topics section contains extensive inline content that could be split into separate reference files. The ratio of overview to inline detail is heavily skewed toward inline detail. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |