sumo_qa_closing_qa_gaps

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It transparently outlines the tool's behavioral loop: failing test → red evidence → minimal fix → green evidence → risk/ledger update. Also notes it pauses when insufficient context/evidence. This gives the agent a good understanding of the process, though it could mention that it modifies code and risk ledger explicitly.

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 well-structured: starts with usage condition, then workflow summary, then a caveat. It is four sentences, front-loaded. Some redundancy in the examples could be trimmed, but overall every sentence earns its place.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's input assumptions (named gap, evidence) and process steps. It implies the output (updated risk ledger, tests, etc.) but does not explicitly state what the tool returns to the agent. A slight gap in specifying return behavior, but sufficient for an experienced agent.

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 input schema has no parameters, so the description's role is to clarify what the tool uses from context. It explains that the tool acts on a previously named concrete gap and requires evidence, which is sufficient. No parameter documentation needed.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: closing a concrete uncovered behavior gap with evidence (failing test -> red evidence -> minimal fix -> green evidence -> update). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on a single closed loop per gap and pausing when insufficient, which is distinct from other qa tools like measuring coverage or strengthening tests.

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 states the condition for use: after a review, mutation run, or graded scenario has named a concrete uncovered behavior gap. Provides examples of user requests. Implicitly excludes cases without a named gap, and mentions pausing when repo context or evidence is insufficient. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context is clear.

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