sumo_qa_triaging_test_failures

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that the tool is diagnosis-only, does not patch, operates before any fix, and gates routing to a fixing skill on confirmation of a product-behaviour gap. It doesn't say what inputs it consumes (repo access? pasted failure output?) or what the diagnosis output looks like, so it falls short of fully rich 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?

Front-loaded with the 'use after' trigger, then examples, then behaviour, then scope boundary. Every sentence carries signal, though the four quoted example utterances are somewhat redundant with the preceding trigger phrasing.

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 no-param, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description covers when to invoke, what it does, its scope limit, and where it hands off. The main gap is how it accesses the failure output and what the classification result contains, which an agent might need to proceed.

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 there is nothing to document and no schema gap to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies; the description adds no parameter meaning because none is needed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it 'reads the failure output, classifies the likely cause, and names the smallest next isolation step'. The 'Diagnosis only — it does not patch' clause clearly separates it from fixing-oriented siblings like sumo_qa_strengthening_tests and sumo_qa_closing_qa_gaps.

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 the entry condition (after sumo-qa-deciding-approach routes here), the triggering situation (test failing or flaky, cause unknown), and gives four concrete utterance examples. It also states the exit condition: routes to a fixing skill only once a concrete product-behaviour gap is confirmed.

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