sumo_qa_answering_testing_question

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that answers cite a principle or technique from the loaded catalogue rather than producing generic advice, which is useful. However, it doesn't specify what happens if the catalogue is empty, how the citation is surfaced, or any output format details.

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?

Concise, two-sentence description. Front-loaded with usage condition and purpose. Slightly dense with the routing precondition and example questions, but no wasted words.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage well. But it doesn't explain what the user should expect as output (e.g., a cited principle/technique response) beyond the behavioral note, and no output schema exists to fill that gap.

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?

Parameter count is 0, so baseline 4 applies. No parameter-related gaps to address.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: answering generic testing questions. Differentiates from siblings by noting it's for questions that don't fit more specific QA skills. Not a tautology, but the scope (generic testing Q&A) is somewhat broad.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: after sumo-qa-deciding-approach routes here, and when the user asks a generic testing question that doesn't fit a more specific skill. Names the routing precondition and the exclusion criteria.

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