sumo_qa_format_risk_ledger

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds real context: it discloses what each row must contain, the enumerated evidence_status/residual values, that it never infers risks itself, that output is token-bounded by max_rows, and what the uncovered-blocker count signals. It does not detail error or validation-failure behavior.

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 the core purpose, then the boundary, then field semantics, then return values. The row-field enumeration is dense but justified given 0% schema coverage. Every sentence carries weight, though the full list could be trimmed slightly.

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, yet the description fully specifies the return payload (markdown table, one-line summary, row count, uncovered-blocker count). Combined with the row-field documentation and the read-only annotations, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and does so well. It documents the structure of every row field (risk_id, risk, source_anchor, test, evidence_status, residual, repo_map_node_id), supplies the enum values for two of them, and explains that max_rows bounds output to the host token budget.

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 and resource ('Validate and render a risk-to-test traceability ledger as a markdown appendix') and immediately scopes the boundary with 'FILE/FORMAT PLUMBING ONLY'. An agent can distinguish this from sibling formatters like sumo_qa_format_qa_scorecard or sumo_qa_format_context_bundle.

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 clearly delineates responsibility ('the host LLM identifies the risks; this tool never infers them') and notes its role in the review workflow's safe-to-merge gate. It does not, however, name a specific alternative tool or state when to prefer it over sibling formatting tools, so it falls short of the explicit when/when-not bar.

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