sumo_qa_deciding_approach

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: loading classifications and approaches, reasoning, picking an approach, routing to sub-skill, and on-demand loading of further catalogues. It does not mention side effects, but the behavior is read-like and well-explained.

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, no fluff. The critical 'first step' guidance is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides essential detail on reasoning and routing. Every word 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 the tool's complexity as a router in a QA workflow, the description lacks explicit mention of return values or state changes. Without an output schema, the agent is left to infer what the tool returns after routing. The description is near-complete but missing return semantics.

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 zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so baseline score is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics as there are none.

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 it is the first step for any QA intent, loads specific resources (classifications and approaches), reasons over user intent, and routes to the appropriate sub-skill. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sumo_qa_load_approaches and sumo_qa_load_classifications by combining loading with reasoning and routing.

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 'Use as the FIRST step on any QA intent', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the context of sibling tools suggests specialization.

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