sqo_prompt_xray

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. It does disclose output characteristics (token cap under 160, embedded file:line coordinates, a claimed ~28,000-token saving), which is real value. It says nothing about whether the workspace is read-only, whether it scans the filesystem or an index, how long it takes, or what happens when no coordinates match.

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 run-on sentence loaded with marketing noise: 'X-Ray', 'Sniper', 'v12.0 Quantum', 'laser-pinned', and an unverifiable '28,000 blind exploration tokens' figure. The useful facts are buried mid-sentence rather than front-loaded, and the exclamation point undercuts technical credibility.

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, read-style tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives an adequate sketch of the returned artifact. It stops short of what an agent needs to choose it confidently: relationship to sibling prompt tools, and what the caller should do with the returned coordinates.

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%, with both `prompt` (English or Arabic raw text) and `workspace` (root directory) documented. The description adds nothing beyond that — the multilingual hint is already in the schema — so the baseline of 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?

The description does name a concrete transformation: turning a vague Arabic/English prompt plus a workspace into a sub-160-token brief annotated with `file:Lstart-Lend` BM25 coordinates. That is specific enough for an agent to know what it produces. It loses a point because it never distinguishes itself from the obvious sibling `sqo_compress_prompt`, and the branding ('Sniper Brief Auto-Enricher', 'v12.0 Quantum') obscures rather than clarifies.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. The phrase 'upgrades vague prompts' implies a trigger condition, but an agent has to infer whether this replaces `sqo_compress_prompt`, `sqo_context_pack`, or neither.

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