sumo_qa_implementing_with_tdd

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

No annotations exist, so description carries burden. It outlines the multi-step process with confirmation gates, and discloses critical behavioral constraint (defer writing until agreement). However, lacks details on failure modes or state changes.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Front-loads sibling dependency. Could be structured with bullets for clarity, but current form is efficient.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, description covers usage and process adequately. Lacks mention of return values or next steps, but tool likely yields conversation prompts. Adequate but could be more thorough.

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?

No parameters in schema, so baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter info (unneeded) but provides process context that adds value beyond 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 clearly states this tool implements TDD after a decision from 'sumo-qa-deciding-approach', with a specific process (plan → risk → test idea → confirm → red → hand off → green → review). It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it's used only after a TDD approach is chosen.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use after sumo-qa-deciding-approach picks...', provides example prompts, and warns 'Don't write the test until the test idea has been agreed.' This gives clear context for when and how to use the tool.

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