sumo_qa_format_risk_ledger

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds that rows are validated against fixed status vocabularies, but does not say what happens on an invalid row (rejected, coerced, dropped) nor that max_rows=25 silently truncates output. Useful but incomplete behavioral context.

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 action is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by a compact field-level spec; there is no filler. Slight awkwardness in 'the host names the risks' and the fragmentary row spec, but overall tight and scannable.

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 two-parameter formatter with no output schema, the description tells the agent the output is a markdown table and defines the row contract well. It leaves open validation-failure behavior, truncation via max_rows, and whether the markdown string is the sole return value, which an agent would need before calling.

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%, so the description carries the burden: it fully documents the `rows` item shape with field names, allowed enum values, and which field is optional, which is genuinely valuable. However, `max_rows` is never mentioned, so half the parameters remain undocumented and truncation behavior is invisible to the agent.

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) plus an unambiguous resource (risk-to-test ledger as a markdown table), and the caller role is clarified with 'the host names the risks.' The enumerated row fields distinguish it clearly from formatting siblings such as 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?

No statement of when this tool should be chosen over sumo_qa_generate_qa_report, sumo_qa_format_qa_scorecard, or sumo_qa_record_coverage, and no preconditions (e.g. risks must already be identified). Only vague implication from 'the host names the risks' that the caller supplies the risk list.

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