sumo_qa_reviewing_before_merge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the multi-step process (reads diff, surfaces risks, runs tests, delivers verdict section by section with confirmation gates) and a key behavioral constraint (refuses to claim safe-to-merge without verification). This gives reasonable insight into operation.

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 a single paragraph of ~4 sentences, front-loading the usage trigger. It is efficient but could be broken into bullet points for readability. 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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential workflow and constraints. It explains what the tool does, how it delivers results (section by section with gates), and its refusal behavior. While more details on test execution feedback could be added, it is complete enough for an agent to decide.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. According to scoring guidelines, 0 parameters gives a baseline of 4. The description provides context about what the tool acts on (diff, files) but does not mislead.

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 begins with 'Use when the user asks...' which clearly identifies the trigger and action. It specifies the key steps: reading diff, surfaced findings, running tests, delivering verdict. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sumo_qa_analyze_diff_impact that may only analyze without the full review cycle.

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 states when to use ('review my changes', 'is this safe to merge', 'what could break') and what the tool does (reads diff, tests, delivers verdict). It also notes what it refuses to do (claim safe-to-merge without fresh evidence). However, it does not explicitly contrast with all siblings or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.

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