sumo_qa_planning_qa_rollout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does well: it names the concrete artifact produced, including the path pattern docs/qa/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature>.md, and its downstream consumer. It stops short of stating that the call writes a file to the repo or what happens if a plan already exists, but for a 0-param tool this is solid 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the usage condition and then the output contract. The parenthetical examples (story, PR, strategy phase) and the path template both earn their place, though the sentence is dense.

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 exists, so the description compensates by naming the produced file and its format, which is what an agent needs. Combined with the explicit upstream/downstream routing, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though the near-duplicate sibling relationship remains unexplained.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. All actionable input arrives as conversational context, which the description implies rather than specifies.

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 transformation: turning a chunk of QA work (story, PR, strategy phase) into a written plan of bite-sized, independently-executable tasks. It also names the upstream router (sumo-qa-deciding-approach) and the downstream consumer (sumo-qa-executing-qa-rollout). However, it never distinguishes itself from the very similar sibling sumo_qa_creating_test_plan, which is an obvious confusion risk.

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 states when to use it (after sumo-qa-deciding-approach routes here) and the precondition that governs use ('before any test code is written'). It also names the follow-on step (subagent dispatch via sumo-qa-executing-qa-rollout), so the agent can place the tool correctly in the workflow.

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