sumo_qa_generate_qa_report

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world tool. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: degraded artifacts are surfaced as missing/stale rather than passing, and the write side effect only occurs when `write_to` is supplied, which is exactly the kind of mutation caveat an agent needs.

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-loads the core action and result in the first sentence, then layers the degradation rule and parameter overrides. Dense but every clause earns its place; the backticked path convention is useful rather than padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description states the return is a compact readiness summary and explains how missing/stale artifacts appear. For a 4-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, it covers the essential behavior, though it leaves the readiness-summary shape and the override object expectations unspecified.

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 burden and largely does: `root` scopes the artifact lookup, `write_to` is explained with a conventional path, and `risk_ledger_rows`/`context_bundle` are described as file overrides. It stops short of stating shapes or formats for the override objects, but all four parameters get semantic meaning.

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 (compose), resource (`.sumo-qa` artifacts under `root`), and outcome (local QA report plus compact readiness summary). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the format_* siblings by naming `risk_ledger_rows` and `context_bundle` as inputs it consumes rather than produces, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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 conditional behavior is clear for `write_to` (writes the page, otherwise nothing is written) and for degenerate artifacts (shown as missing/stale, never passing). However, there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus `sumo_qa_format_qa_scorecard` or the other format_* siblings, so the agent must infer placement in the workflow.

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