Content
75%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 an efficient, well-structured reference with concrete parameter tables and a clear tool-selection escalation workflow. It is held at 4 across dimensions by minor trimmable prose, the lack of executable call examples, and the absence of explicit validation checkpoints.
Suggestions
Add one or two concrete tool-invocation examples (e.g. a sample tavily_search call with arguments) to push actionability toward fully executable.
Trim framing sentences like 'Use when you need fine-grained control over search behavior' since the 'When to use which tool' table already conveys this.
Add an explicit verify/retry checkpoint in the search+extract combine workflow (e.g. check extract returned content before proceeding).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Dense parameter tables and terse tips assume Claude's competence without explaining what web search or extraction are, sitting at 'efficient with minor over-explanation that could be trimmed'; not 5 because a few framing sentences are non-essential. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete parameter tables give types, defaults, ranges, and depth options so Claude knows exactly what to pass, and as an instruction-only skill the absence of executable code is not penalized; not 5 because no actual tool-invocation examples are shown for common cases. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear escalation sequence (web_search -> tavily_search -> tavily_extract) plus a fallback loop ('try basic first, fall back to advanced if content is missing') sequence the multi-tool choice well; not a destructive/batch operation so the validation cap does not apply, but formal validation checkpoints are absent, keeping it at 4. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized sections (## web_search, ## tavily_search, ## tavily_extract, ## Choosing the right workflow) with easy navigation and no external bundle files needed, content appropriately inline for a three-tool reference; not 5 because the ~85-line body could arguably split detailed parameter refs into separate files, though inline placement is reasonable. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |