sqo_shadow_check

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful traits: the operation is fast, speculative, and runs across eight language ecosystems. But it never states whether the tool is read-only, what it returns on failure, whether it exits with errors or just reports, or what happens when a target path does not exist — and there is no output schema to compensate.

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 tightly packed sentence with the trigger condition front-loaded and no filler. The heavy comma-and-ampersand keyword stacking makes it harder to parse than it needs to be, but nothing is wasted.

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 pre-flight validation tool with complete schema coverage, the description covers scope and timing adequately. The significant gap is return semantics: without an output schema, the agent has no idea whether the result is a pass/fail flag, a per-file diagnostics list, or an error count, which matters for planning a build gate.

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%, and both parameters (workspace, targets) are already documented in the schema, including the 'defaults to git dirty files' behavior. The description adds no additional meaning about path formats, glob support, or what happens with directories versus files, 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 names the specific checks performed (syntax, balanced delimiters, broken relative imports, merge conflicts), the languages covered, and the timing constraint (<12ms, pre-flight). It clearly distinguishes this from build/test execution. However, it is a keyword-dense noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, which slightly reduces crispness.

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?

The phrase 'BEFORE running expensive builds/tests' gives a clear temporal trigger for use. There is no guidance on when NOT to use it, and no explicit routing to alternatives such as sqo_ci_shield or sqo_drift_guard, which may overlap in scope. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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