sumo_qa_creating_test_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: walking user through a step-by-step process (scope → risks → entry criteria → phases → exit criteria → residual risks) with confirmation at each step. It also notes the tool is 'heavier' than another, giving a clear behavioral distinction.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, then details the process, and ends with a sibling comparison. Every sentence adds value.

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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description covers everything needed: what it does, how it behaves (step-by-step with confirmation), and when to use it over alternatives. It is fully complete for its context.

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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, baseline is 4. The description correctly omits parameter details as none exist.

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 states the tool's purpose: creating formal test plans, entry/exit criteria, or phased QA approaches. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling 'sumo-qa-preparing-for-work' by noting this tool is heavier and for tracked/formally reviewed work.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use (user asks for formal test plan, etc.) and contrasts with a sibling tool. However, it does not list all possible alternatives from the sibling list, leaving some ambiguity about when other tools might be preferred.

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