sumo_qa_closing_qa_gaps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose key traits: one closed loop per gap, evidence must be red-then-green, and it pauses when repo context or evidence is insufficient. It stops short of stating side effects (does it write test files? mutate the repo? need permissions?) or what a completed loop returns, which matters for a tool that clearly produces artifacts.

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 triggering condition before the mechanics, and the three sentences each carry distinct information (when, what, and when to stop). The example list in the first sentence is slightly heavy but serves to disambiguate trigger intent, so it largely 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?

For a zero-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the invocation context and the loop semantics well. It is not fully complete because an agent still cannot tell what artifacts the loop produces or where evidence is recorded, though that may be outside the description's scope.

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 the schema baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly spends no words on inputs, instead describing gap selection implicitly through the preconditions.

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: it drives ONE closed loop per named uncovered behavior gap, producing red and green evidence. That scope ('one loop per gap') is distinctive enough to separate it from siblings like sumo_qa_strengthening_tests or sumo_qa_implementing_with_tdd, which are not framed around a single already-named gap.

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 names the upstream routing tool (sumo_qa_deciding_approach) and the precondition that a review, mutation run, or graded scenario has already named a concrete gap. It supplies concrete trigger utterances ('close this gap', 'fix this surviving mutant end to end') and a stop condition, leaving little to inference.

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