sumo_qa_creating_test_plan

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's relative weight and the shape of its output (formal plan, criteria, phases), which is useful, but it says nothing about permissions, whether it mutates state, or what the caller receives back.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the routing precondition comes first, then the heaviness/alternative contrast. Every clause 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?

With zero params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the decision-relevant information an agent needs to route correctly. The only shortfall is that it leaves the returned artifact's form implicit rather than stated.

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 schema coverage is a non-issue and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not introduce parameter-like inputs that would need documenting.

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 concrete deliverable (a formal test plan with entry/exit criteria and a phased QA approach) rather than restating the name. It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling sumo_qa_preparing_for_work by being 'heavier,' so an agent can choose between the two without opening either schema.

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 explicit preconditions ('use after sumo-qa-deciding-approach routes here'), trigger conditions ('formal test plan, entry/exit criteria, phased QA approach'), and a when-not/alternative ('heavier than sumo-qa-preparing-for-work; use when the work is tracked or formally reviewed'). Nothing is left to inference.

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