sumo_qa_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the exact shape of the response (workflows with prompts, skill routing, outcomes; active profile; how to enable omitted groups), which is necessary since there is no output schema.

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-loaded with the core action, then the payload contents, then the routing caveat. Dense but every clause carries information; the em-dash list is a bit long but not padded.

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, no-output-schema discovery tool, the description covers what is returned, what it is for, and what it does not replace. Nothing an agent needs in order to decide to call it is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the absence of inputs, which the empty schema already communicates.

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 and resource ('Return a compact, read-only map of sumo-qa's core QA workflows') and enumerates the payload (sample prompt, routed skill, one-line outcome, active tool profile, enabled capability groups). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming using-sumo-qa and sumo_qa_deciding_approach as things it does not replace.

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 a clear positive use condition ('A discovery aid for "what can sumo-qa do?"') and negative guidance naming two sibling tools it does not substitute. Lacks an explicit rule for when to prefer this over the entry router versus when to start there, but the routing intent is unambiguous.

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