sumo_qa_preparing_for_work

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

The description explains the tool produces risk identification and a test proposal. While no annotations are available, the description implies no destructive actions, which is appropriate for a planning tool. A slightly more explicit statement about being non-destructive would enhance transparency.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the usage scenario and core functionality, with 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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and its context (pre-coding planning, risk identification, test set proposal). It could note the output format, but it is sufficient for a lightweight analysis tool.

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, the description does not need to augment parameter meanings. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds value by explaining the tool's context and output.

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 the tool's purpose: to plan QA for a story/ticket before coding starts, identifying risks and proposing a test set. It distinguishes from the sibling 'sumo-qa-creating-test-plan' by noting it is lighter-weight and lacks formal criteria.

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 tells when to use ('when user asks to plan QA... before coding starts') and contrasts with the heavier sibling tool, providing clear guidance on when not to use this tool.

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