sumo_qa_strategising

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

The description outlines the step-by-step process (from repo inventory to residual risks) and mentions the use of 'host's file tools', providing full transparency about the tool's behavior without any annotations needing disclosure.

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 two sentences: the first clearly states purpose with examples, the second details the process. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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 provides a thorough explanation of the tool's purpose, usage, and behavior, making it fully complete for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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 has zero parameters, so the description need not explain them. The 100% schema coverage is trivial, and the description adds value by explaining the tool's operation, consistent with the baseline score of 4 for no-parameter tools.

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 explicitly states the tool is for 'repo-wide / policy-shaped asks' and gives concrete examples like 'audit our test coverage', which clearly defines its purpose and distinguishes it from siblings focused on specific tasks like diff impact analysis or test plan creation.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (for strategic, repo-wide questions) and includes example queries, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like sumo_qa_creating_test_plan or sumo_qa_deciding_approach.

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