sqo_perf_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the specific detection categories it runs, which is real behavioral context beyond the name, but it says nothing about whether the tool is read-only, whether it writes reports to the workspace, permission or dependency requirements (e.g. Flutter/Dart toolchain), or how findings are returned.

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, but it is front-loaded with marketing noise ('v11.0 Hypernova') and a three-part marketing title before the actionable content. The detection list earns its place; the version branding does not.

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 static analysis tool with no output schema, the agent still lacks scope information: applicable project types, what the report contains, and whether the scan is expensive. The pattern list partially compensates, but the definition is not complete enough to call confidently.

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?

Only one parameter (workspace) exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies. The description adds no meaning about what the workspace root should point to, whether it must contain a pubspec.yaml, or how the scan is scoped within it.

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 concrete resource and detection targets: N+1 DB/HTTP calls inside loops, unbatched sequential awaits, undisposed Flutter controllers, jsonDecode in build(). An agent can tell it is a performance-pattern scanner. However, it never distinguishes itself from neighboring audit tools such as sqo_ui_audit or sqo_cache_audit, so routing between them is left to inference.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The list of detected patterns implies the tool is for performance review, but nothing tells the agent when to prefer it over sqo_ui_audit or sqo_benchmark, or whether it applies only to Flutter/Dart workspaces.

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