sumo_qa_planning_qa_rollout

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains the step-by-step process ('Walks scope → file structure → bite-sized tasks → confirm, one section per turn') and the output file creation. This provides good behavioral context, though it omits details like whether it modifies existing files or requires specific permissions.

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 description is concise (3 sentences), front-loaded with the use condition, and every sentence serves a purpose: when to use, what it does, and what the output is. No wasted words.

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 the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a comprehensive overview: use case, process, output path, and relation to a sibling tool. It could be slightly more explicit about the tool's behavior if the conversation lacks the needed context, but overall it is complete enough for an agent.

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 zero parameters and full schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining that the tool expects context from the conversation (the 'chunk of QA work') rather than formal parameters, which is meaningful for 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?

The description clearly states it converts QA work into a written plan of bite-sized tasks, with a specific output file path. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sumo_qa_executing_qa_rollout by being the planning step before execution.

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 explicitly says 'Use when you have a chunk of QA work...' and mentions the prerequisite of no test code written. It also notes the file is ready for subagent dispatch via a sibling tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.

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