sqo_compile_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: static repo inspection, under 25ms, zero LLM tokens. What it omits is the consequential part — whether files are actually written to disk, what happens when write_target is omitted (return vs write), and whether an existing CLAUDE.md/AGENTS.md would be overwritten.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence, which is good, but a meaningful share of it is promotional noise ('Bespoke', 'v13.0 Zenith', '<25ms (0 LLM tokens!)') that doesn't help an agent decide or invoke. The useful content (what it reads, what it produces) is crowded by that framing.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate: inputs are covered by the schema. Gaps remain on the output side — whether the compiled constitution is returned in the response or only written to disk, and how existing files are handled — which an agent needs before invoking a file-producing tool.

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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description's 'inspects your exact repo stack' loosely corroborates the workspace parameter but adds no format or scope detail, and it doesn't clarify the write-vs-return semantics of write_target beyond the schema's example filenames. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and artifact set: it 'compiles custom AI constitution files' (CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / .cursorrules) by inspecting the repo's stack, build/test scripts and module versions. An agent can tell this generates agent-rule files rather than analyzing code. It loses a point for marketing framing ('Bespoke', 'v13.0 Zenith') and for not distinguishing itself from plausible siblings like sqo_init_preset.

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, or alternative named. The closest thing is an implied trigger ('inspects your exact repo stack ... and compiles custom AI constitution files'), which an agent must infer. Nothing says whether to run this once at setup versus repeatedly, or how it relates to preset/init-style tools.

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