sumo_qa_format_risk_ledger

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent. Description adds details about bounded output (max_rows), return fields (table, summary, counts, blockers), and clarifies it never infers risks, enhancing transparency beyond annotations.

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?

Well-structured with early purpose statement and capitalized emphasis. Thorough but not bloated; every sentence adds value. Slightly verbose given the detailed row specification, but justifiable for complexity.

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 present; description covers return fields (table, summary, row count, uncovered blockers) and row structure. Lacks error conditions or input validation, but sufficient for a format-only tool with robust annotations.

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 provides extensive meaning for both parameters: explodes the row object structure (risk_id, risk, source_anchor, test, evidence_status, residual, optional repo_map_node_id) and explains max_rows bounds output. Greatly compensates for schema gaps.

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 it validates and renders a risk-to-test traceability ledger as a markdown appendix, distinguishing it from sibling tools by emphasizing format plumbing only, no inference.

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?

Implicitly suggests use after risk identification via 'FILE/FORMAT PLUMBING ONLY — the host LLM identifies the risks', but no explicit when-not or alternatives among many sibling tools.

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