sumo_qa_finding_test_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal the essential behavior — this tool delegates to one of four test-data tools rather than performing the work itself — which is the most important trait for an agent. However, it does not say what the caller receives back, whether the sub-tool's result is returned verbatim, or how the routing decision is actually resolved, leaving real behavioral gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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, front-loaded with the precondition and trigger before the routing target list; each clause earns its place by naming either a trigger or a destination tool. Minor density cost from the em-dash intent list, but nothing is redundant or padded.

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 router with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the trigger and the routing targets, which is most of what an agent needs. It omits the post-routing contract (what the caller sees after dispatch) and does not explicitly tell the agent to prefer this entry point over invoking the leaf test-data tools directly, which is a meaningful ambiguity given how many overlapping siblings exist.

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 schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies: no parameter semantics are needed because no inputs 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 states a specific function — dispatching test-data requests — and names the four downstream tools it routes between (explain, find, validate, register), which map onto identifiable siblings such as sumo_qa_find_test_data and sumo_qa_validate_test_data. It is clear this is a routing/entry-point tool rather than a leaf action, though the phrasing 'finding test data' in the name is slightly narrower than the routing role described.

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?

It gives an explicit precondition ('Use after sumo-qa-deciding-approach routes here') plus a concrete trigger taxonomy: what data to test X, find a known-good record, validate an entry, register new known-good data. This maps intents to the four target tools, so an agent can tell when to invoke it. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. calling the leaf tools directly), so it is not a 5.

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