sumo_qa_format_context_bundle

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent. The description adds that it never inspects repos, never makes network calls, and explains behaviors with partial bundles, freshness semantics, and sha conflict detection, with no contradictions.

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 well-structured with a clear front-loaded purpose, followed by constraints, natural-language phrasings, and detailed parameter info. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value.

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?

Given the complexity (nested objects, no output schema), the description covers bundle structure, freshness, conflict detection, and fallback behavior. It notes the output is a compact markdown brief, though finer output details are omitted, which is acceptable.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description thoroughly explains the 'bundle' object structure, including optional fields and 'freshness' semantics. It also details 'local_head_sha' for conflict detection and 'max_files' for bounding, adding significant meaning 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 explicitly states the tool validates and renders a context bundle into a markdown brief for QA review/planning, with clear verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it never inspects repos or makes network calls.

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 provides common natural-language phrasings and constraints like 'the host gathers the facts'. It implies when not to use (not for data gathering), but does not explicitly list alternative tools for specific cases.

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