sumo_qa_suggesting_external_skill

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

With no annotations, the description reveals key behaviors: confirmation before install, fallback on failure, and invocation constraints. However, it omits details about output, persistence of installation, authentication needs, or other side effects, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 a concise single paragraph that front-loads usage scenarios. Minor redundancy ('through sumo-qa MCP tools') exists, but overall it is efficient and well-structured.

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, the description fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., success, result, or error). It also assumes domain knowledge and does not reference sibling tools within the suite, leaving the agent with incomplete context for a complex 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?

The input schema has no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter semantics because none exist, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 the tool's role: it finds, installs, and executes external skills when no native sumo-qa sub-skill fits or for ingestion conversion. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the exact entry points (deciding-approach fallback or ingestion conversion) and the actions performed.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool (as a fallback or for ingestion conversion) and notes it is never invoked cold. However, it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or directly compare to sibling tools like sumo_qa_install_external_skill, though the dual install/execute behavior is implied.

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