sumo_qa_finishing_qa_work

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and details the tool's actions: runs the suite, captures coverage/risk-to-test map/open follow-ups, writes a markdown summary, and offers to draft a PR description. While it doesn't cover every possible side effect, it provides substantial transparency for an agent.

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 concise yet packed with essential information. It front-loads the usage context and clearly lists all key actions without unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The description fully explains what the tool does and what it produces (markdown summary and PR draft), which is complete given there is no output schema. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's role in the QA workflow.

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 the description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds value by detailing the tool's outputs and workflow beyond the schema.

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: to finish a QA rollout by capturing evidence, producing a PR-ready summary, and closing the loop. It explicitly mentions preceding actions and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying when it should be used.

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 says when to use: 'at the end of a QA rollout (after sumo-qa-executing-qa-rollout, or after a manual multi-step QA task)'. This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives.

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