sumo_qa_security_testing

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

No annotations are provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'deeper evidence selection' but does not explain what the tool does concretely (e.g., returns evidence? selects from a pool?), nor does it address side effects, authorization, or state changes.

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?

Single sentence front-loaded with the usage cue 'Use when.' Every word serves a purpose, no fluff. Appropriate length for a zero-parameter tool.

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 and no annotations, the description provides essential purpose and usage context but lacks details on return value or procedural behavior. 'Deeper evidence selection' remains ambiguous, leaving gaps for an agent deciding invocation.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter info, but that is acceptable since schema coverage is 100% and there are no parameters to explain.

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 this tool is for explicit security testing or grounded security gaps requiring deeper evidence selection. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on general QA processes like plan creation, gap analysis, or test execution.

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?

Provides explicit condition: 'Use when explicit security testing or a grounded security gap needs deeper evidence selection.' Does not list when to avoid or alternatives, but the condition is specific enough to guide selection among siblings.

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