sumo_qa_strategising

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one meaningful trait – 'Walks the repo with the host's file tools first' – so the agent knows repo reads happen before output. However, it says nothing about whether the tool writes artifacts, what the strategy deliverable looks like, or whether the operation is read-only versus mutating.

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, front-loaded with the routing condition before the example asks. The four examples are the bulkiest element but each maps to a distinct ask shape, so they largely earn their place.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description covers entry conditions and rough behavior, which is most of what an agent needs. The gap is the deliverable: it never says what the strategising produces or how the result should be consumed, leaving the agent to infer the outcome.

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, so the schema is trivially complete and there is no parameter semantics to add. Baseline 4 applies; nothing is missing or misleading.

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 names a specific activity (repo-wide / policy-shaped QA strategising) and grounds it with four concrete example asks, which lets an agent separate it from narrower siblings like sumo_qa_creating_test_plan or sumo_qa_measuring_coverage. The verb 'strategising' alone is abstract, but the quoted asks carry the meaning.

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 states an explicit entry condition ('Use after sumo-qa-deciding-approach routes here') and enumerates the kinds of asks that belong here, which is stronger than implied usage. It does not state when *not* to use it or name a contrasting alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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