sumo_qa_analyze_diff_impact

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

Annotations mark it non-read-only and non-idempotent, and the description adds the reasons: write_overlay writes a file to a fixed path, artifact_path=None saves nothing, and probable_mapping_gap is a naming gap rather than zero coverage. These are genuine behavioral disclosures beyond the annotations, though it doesn't say whether the overlay is overwritten or merged.

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?

Front-loads the purpose before parameter detail, and each clause carries real information (semantics of None, the mapping-gap caveat). It is dense but not padded; a light trim of the parentheticals would earn a 5.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description does the work by naming what the result contains (tests, risk surface, affected nodes, staleness). Side effects and the mapping-gap nuance are covered, making it adequate for a 5-param analysis tool, though the exact output shape is only sketched.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage across 5 params, the text explains changed_files (repo-relative), base_ref (merge-base diff), artifact_path (source vs live scan vs None saves nothing) and write_overlay (writes a specific path). Only root is left unelaborated, which is nearly self-evident.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Map changed files onto the repo-map' and enumerates the outputs (likely tests, risk surface, affected nodes, staleness). This distinguishes it clearly from the read-only query_repo_map sibling, though it never names that alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives concrete operating modes: 'Pass changed_files (repo-relative) or base_ref (diffed from its merge-base with HEAD)' and explains the map source resolution. It states how to invoke but does not explicitly contrast when to pick this over query_repo_map or scan_repo.

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