sqo_finops_guard

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does not state whether this only reads and reports or also mutates files, whether cloud credentials or network access are required, or how findings are surfaced. It implies a preventive scan but never confirms a read-only safety profile.

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 sentence, but the payload is padded with branding and hype ('v12.0 Quantum', 'Bill-Shock Preventer', '$5,000+ overnight bills!') that delays the functional clause. The useful detection list does appear, yet it arrives after pure marketing 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?

This is a multi-pattern risk detector with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should explain the shape and severity of findings and how to act on them. Instead it stops at the marketing promise, leaving an agent unable to predict results or workflow.

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?

There is a single required parameter (workspace) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds no meaning about what the workspace root is used to scan, but the high coverage justifies the 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?

The description does name concrete things it looks for (React useEffect read loops, recursive Cloud Function self-triggers, LLM calls in loops, uncapped/unrated AI endpoints), so the resource and check types are identifiable. However, the actual verb is buried inside a marketing label ('Bill-Shock Preventer (v12.0 Quantum)') and there is no differentiation from budget-adjacent siblings like sqo_budgeted_diff or sqo_media_budget.

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 an implicit cue to run it pre-emptively ('before $5,000+ overnight bills'), but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or named alternative. An agent cannot tell whether this belongs in a pre-deploy gate, a periodic audit, or an on-demand review.

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