compose_squad_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the pipeline is deterministic and describes output components (config, skipped_paths, disabled_agents). However, it does not state whether the tool modifies any state (read-only vs. write), which is important for safe invocation.

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?

The description is a single dense paragraph that front-loads the pipeline steps. It efficiently packs information without wasted words, though breaking into bullet points could improve readability.

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?

Given 11 parameters (2 required) with 0% schema coverage, nested objects, and no output schema, the description partially compensates by explaining the pipeline output layout. However, it lacks detailed descriptions for most input parameters and does not fully specify return value structure.

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 0%. The description only mentions override parameters (force_work_type, force_agents, risk_signals) but fails to explain the other 8 parameters (e.g., workspace_root, user_prompt, base_ref, staged_only). This leaves the agent with limited guidance for correctly filling required fields.

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 clearly states it is an 'end-to-end deterministic pipeline' listing specific steps (detect_changed_files -> ... -> select_squad). It differentiates from sibling tools (the individual steps) by being the composite workflow that returns the union output.

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 description indicates when to use overrides (force_agents, risk_signals, force_work_type) and explains priority (force_agents wins over config.disable_agents). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling step tools, but the composite nature is clear from the pipeline description.

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