sumo_qa_format_context_bundle

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

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent/non-open-world, and the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: partial/empty bundles are first-class, freshness values are enumerated, stale/unknown/absent facts are rendered with an explicit 'do not claim safety' warning, and a bundle-vs-local-state SHA divergence is called out rather than silently trusted.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded with a bolded scope boundary, and the field-level detail is dense but each clause informs invocation. The NL-phrasing list and the issue-number parenthetical add mild retrieval value rather than essential content, keeping it just short of maximal conciseness.

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 3-param formatter with no output schema and a nested, untyped bundle object, the description supplies enough to call it correctly and understand the rendered artifact. It could more fully describe the emitted brief's structure, but the freshness/conflict warnings and fallback behavior cover the agent's decision needs.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it names every bundle key (issue_summary, pr_summary, head_sha, changed_files with {path, change_kind}, test_evidence/ci_status with {result, freshness, source}, user_constraints), defines the freshness enum, and explains local_head_sha's conflict-detection role and max_files' bounding role.

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?

States a specific verb pair (validate and render) and a precise resource (host-neutral issue/PR context bundle as a compact markdown brief for QA review/planning). The explicit boundary 'FILE/FORMAT PLUMBING ONLY — never inspects a repo, makes a network call, or assumes GitHub' cleanly separates it from siblings like sumo_qa_scan_repo and sumo_qa_analyze_diff_impact.

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?

Provides concrete natural-language triggers ('build the review context bundle', 'format this PR/issue context for review') and a clear condition for use, plus the fallback behavior when a partial/empty bundle is supplied. It doesn't name a specific sibling alternative explicitly, but the negative scope ('the host gathers the facts') effectively routes the agent away from inspection tools.

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