sumo_qa_triaging_test_failures

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

No annotations provided, but description fully discloses behavior: reads failure output, classifies cause, names next isolation step, and explicitly states it does not patch. Provides complete behavioral context.

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?

Description is concise, front-loaded with usage condition, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or vague language.

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 is complete: it explains input (user query), process, output (next step), and boundaries (no patching).

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?

Input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter info since none exist, but it explains the process sufficiently.

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 is for diagnosing test failures or flakiness when cause is unknown. It uses specific verb 'triages' and resource 'test failures', and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on the triage phase.

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 says 'Use when a test is failing or flaky and the cause is not yet known', gives example user queries, and clarifies it does not patch but only diagnoses and routes to fixing skill when appropriate.

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