sumo_qa_preparing_for_work

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one real behavioral trait beyond the name: that this path omits formal entry/exit criteria and is intentionally lighter-weight than the test-plan tool. However, it says nothing about what the tool produces, whether it mutates any QA state, or what the agent should expect back.

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 filler. The routing precondition is front-loaded ahead of the trigger and the sibling comparison, so the most decision-relevant information arrives first.

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 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the invocation trigger well but leaves the outcome side blank: an agent does not know what this tool returns or what state it leaves behind. Adequate for a zero-arg workflow step, but not complete.

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 zero parameters and the schema is trivially complete, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies; the description neither needs to nor does add parameter detail.

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 states a concrete activity (plan QA for a story, ticket, or piece of work before coding starts) and names the sibling it must be distinguished from, sumo-qa-creating-test-plan. It is not a clean verb+resource phrasing, but the scope is unambiguous enough that an agent can identify the tool's role in the workflow.

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?

It gives an explicit entry condition ('Use after sumo-qa-deciding-approach routes here'), an explicit trigger ('when the user asks to plan QA ... before coding starts'), and an explicit contrast with the nearest alternative ('Lighter-weight than sumo-qa-creating-test-plan; no formal entry/exit criteria'). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative guidance the dimension asks for.

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