sqo_verify_deps

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 meaningful behavior: which manifest files are read and what class of problem is flagged (hallucinated/undeclared packages), which implies a read-only static analysis. However it says nothing about whether anything is written, what the result looks like, or how missing/unsupported manifests are handled.

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?

One dense sentence with the capability front-loaded after a short branded label; every clause adds information about inputs or purpose. The 'Anti-Hallucination ... Verifier' framing and exclamation mark are mild marketing filler rather than substance.

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 single-parameter analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it consumes and what it detects, which is enough to call it correctly. The main residual gap is the shape of the returned findings, which the absent output schema leaves entirely to inference.

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 parameter (workspace) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains it. The description adds no semantics for the workspace path, such as whether it must be a repo root, whether monorepos are supported, or whether manifests are discovered recursively. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 gives a concrete verb chain (cross-check imports against manifests) plus the exact resource classes it inspects: Python, JS/TS, Dart/Flutter sources against package.json, pubspec.yaml, pyproject.toml, and requirements.txt. That is far more specific than the tool name sqo_verify_deps alone. It stops short of naming a sibling such as sqo_dependency_slices, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than read it.

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?

'before build!' is the only usage cue, implying a pre-build gate, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. The agent gets a timing hint but no routing rule against the many other sqo_verify_* and dependency-related siblings.

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