sqo_swarm_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: a two-stage breakdown, model routing (frontier for contracts, fast for workers) and an approximate quota saving. However, it never says whether the tool is read-only, whether it writes files into the workspace, or what the returned plan looks like, which are exactly the gaps annotations would normally fill.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler sentences, which is good. But it is packed with branded jargon ('Frontier model', 'Fast model', 'Stage-0 Shared Contracts') and a marketing stat ('-82% quota burn') that crowd out operationally useful detail.

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 three-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition should clarify the shape of the returned brief and whether invoking it mutates the workspace. It hints at output ('ready-to-send prompts') but leaves the calling contract partly inferred, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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%, so goal, workspace and max_workers are already self-documenting. The description adds no meaning beyond that — it does not explain how max_workers interacts with the 'collision-free' partitioning or what granularity of goal it expects. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 definition names a specific verb and artifact — partitions a goal into Stage-0 shared contracts plus Stage-1 parallel worker briefs with ready-to-send prompts. It is clear what the tool produces, but it never contrasts itself with plausibly overlapping siblings such as sqo_autopilot or sqo_council_review, so an agent cannot rule those out from the definition alone.

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 named alternative. 'Partitions any goal' implies broad applicability but gives no prerequisites (does it need an indexed workspace? existing code?) and no condition that would send the agent to a different planning tool.

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