sqo_dependency_slices

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it: it never says whether the tool only reads the workspace or writes anything, whether the emitted workflow script is returned or persisted, or what permissions/costs apply. It implies analysis rather than mutation, but that inference comes from the word 'Parse', not from explicit disclosure.

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 sentence with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. Its density works against it slightly, since the parenthetical mode sits at the end and the stage terminology is unexplained, but nothing is redundant.

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?

With four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain the shape of what comes back, yet 'Stage-0 shared contracts' and 'Stage-1 slices' are never defined. An agent can identify the operation but cannot predict the response structure or the side effects of the optional workflow emission.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only a thin layer of meaning by tying 'emit_workflow' to 'emitting an Antigravity run_workflow script' and by implying the 'goal' parameter matters when that mode is on; it adds no detail on slicing strategy or how max_workers affects the split.

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?

The description names a concrete verb and resource ('Parse import dependency graphs') and specifies the two artifacts produced ('Stage-0 shared contracts', 'Stage-1 collision-free parallel worker slices'). The jargon-heavy terminology blurs exactly what those artifacts are, and no sibling tool is named to contrast against, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 statement of when to reach for this tool, what preconditions exist (e.g. a resolvable import graph in the workspace), or what alternative to use for a simpler dependency query. The only usage hint is the parenthetical 'optionally emitting', which signals a mode but not a decision rule.

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