Selects deeper security-testing evidence when an explicit security test or grounded security gap is identified, after the QA approach is decided.
Use after sumo-qa-deciding-approach routes here, when explicit security testing or a grounded security gap needs deeper evidence selection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.50.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about what the tool produces, what evidence it selects or returns, whether it mutates state, or what the caller should do next — for a tool with zero structured behavioral coverage this is a substantial gap.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no padding; the precondition precedes the condition. It is slightly jargon-heavy ('grounded security gap', 'deeper evidence selection') but wastes no 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?
For a 0-param workflow-step tool with no output schema, the trigger conditions are adequately specified, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should at least indicate the nature of the result or the next step in the chain. It is minimally sufficient rather than 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 schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty schema.
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 identifies the trigger ('explicit security testing or a grounded security gap') and hints at the activity ('deeper evidence selection'), but never states what the tool actually does when invoked — no verb+resource beyond the name's 'security testing'. It is distinguishable from most siblings by topic, but the operation itself remains vague.
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 explicitly names the routing predecessor ('Use after sumo-qa-deciding-approach routes here') and gives the selecting condition (explicit security testing, or a grounded gap needing deeper evidence). That is a clear when-to-use, though it does not state when NOT to use this versus adjacent siblings like closing_qa_gaps or measuring_coverage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.