sumo_qa_executing_qa_rollout

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that tasks run in fresh subagents (parallel where independent), with two-stage review and no per-task check-ins. Adds useful context beyond typical annotations, but lacks details on failure handling or side effects.

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?

Three sentences: first sets purpose and predecessor, second explains execution mechanism, third notes continuous execution and successor. No fluff, front-loaded with key information.

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-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers workflow position, execution model, and successor. However, it lacks error handling behavior (e.g., what happens if a subagent or review fails), which would improve completeness.

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?

Input schema has zero properties, so no parameter information needed. The description naturally omits parameter details, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 dispatches a QA plan task-by-task after planning, runs subagents with parallel execution and two-stage review, and finishes by routing to a finishing tool. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying its position in the workflow (after planning, before finishing).

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 says 'Use after sumo-qa-planning-qa-rollout' and mentions routing to sumo-qa-finishing-qa-work, giving clear when-to-use context. It does not provide exclusions or alternatives for when not to use, but the sequential workflow implies usage only in that context.

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