sumo_qa_format_context_bundle

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive; the description is consistent and adds real behavioral content: the host gathers the data (no fetching), and 'only a fresh pass supports safety' states a decision rule the agent must honour. It stops short of describing truncation behaviour or output shape details beyond 'compact markdown brief'.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the no-network constraint, then a compact telegraphic enumeration of bundle keys. Dense but every clause carries information; the only cost is that the key listing is terse enough to be slightly hard to parse on first read.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does state the return is a compact markdown brief, plus it documents the otherwise-undocumented nested bundle. Given a free-form nested object and three parameters, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only `max_files` truncation behaviour is unaddressed.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and `bundle` is a free-form object with no property documentation, so the description carries the load — and it does, enumerating issue_summary, pr_summary, head_sha, changed_files ({path, change_kind}), test_evidence/ci_status ({result, freshness, source}), and user_constraints, plus the freshness enum semantics. `max_files` (default 40) is left unexplained, which is the main gap.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Render a host-gathered issue/PR context bundle as a compact markdown brief', with an explicit boundary ('no repo or network access'). An agent can distinguish it from the other formatter siblings (format_risk_ledger, format_qa_scorecard) by the 'context bundle' input, though it doesn't name those alternatives directly.

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?

'no repo or network access' and 'host-gathered' imply the tool is a pure formatting step that must be preceded by data collection elsewhere, which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not / alternative-tool routing among the many sibling formatters and report generators.

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