sumo_qa_strengthening_tests

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses that production code stays unchanged and outlines the step-by-step process with confirmation gates. However, it does not detail whether tests are automatically modified or what specifically changes in test files (e.g., assertions).

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?

Three sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with usage context, followed by workflow steps, and ends with a key behavioral constraint. 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, description adequately covers purpose, usage, and workflow. It mentions what stays unchanged (production code) but could elaborate on effects on test files. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. Description correctly omits any parameter details as none exist. No information is needed beyond what is already provided by schema (100% coverage of empty params).

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: strengthening tests after sumo-qa-deciding-approach picks strengthen-test-coverage. It specifies a workflow (survivor → tautology check → technique → strengthening test) and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing a specific decision outcome.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use after sumo-qa-deciding-approach picks strengthen-test-coverage.' Provides context (mutation-testing follow-up, raise-coverage tasks) but does not list explicit exclusions or alternatives. Still, it offers clear guidance for the intended use case.

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