sqo_cache_audit

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations supplied, the description bears the full disclosure burden. 'Audit' implies a read-only inspection and the target metric band (75%-90% cache hit discounts) adds real context, but it never confirms that nothing is modified, nor does it mention permissions, scope of scanning, or effort/cost.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler: the action, the audited artifact types, and the success criterion all appear immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter audit tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers what is audited but not what the agent gets back, whether findings are actionable/fixable via a sibling, or whether the call is read-only. Adequate to invoke, but not complete enough to predict the outcome.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'workspace' parameter, so the schema already defines its meaning. The description adds no syntax, path-format, or relative-vs-absolute constraints beyond what the schema states, which is the expected baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Audit) plus a concrete resource set (hooks, MCP tools, rules) and the property being checked (KV-cache prefix stability). It is clearly distinct from adjacent audit-style siblings such as sqo_perf_audit or sqo_i18n_audit, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The parenthetical about 75%-90% cache hit discounts hints at the motivating condition (degraded cache performance), but the agent must infer it rather than being told.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.