using_sumo_qa

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the key behavioral trait: this is a router/entry point, not a tool that answers QA questions itself. It implies no side effects but never states whether the call mutates state or what it returns, leaving a minor gap for a mutation-free read router.

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 core directive is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the trigger enumeration serves a real routing purpose. It is longer than necessary — 'test plan, test strategy, test approach' are near-synonyms — but the length is justified by the breadth of QA-shaped requests it must catch.

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 zero-param, no-output-schema router, the description is nearly complete: it says when to call it and that downstream work happens through siblings. It could briefly state what the call yields (e.g. a route selection) so the agent knows what to expect back, but nothing essential is missing.

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?

Zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing to document, and the description correctly adds no parameter noise.

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 role: an entry router for all sumo-qa work that MUST be called first for QA-shaped requests. This clearly distinguishes it from every sibling, all of which are downstream work tools, so an agent can tell it apart without opening any schema.

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?

Provides an explicit trigger list (test plan, regression scope, code review, safe-to-merge, TDD, mutation testing, etc.) and an explicit exclusion — do not answer QA questions from training-data knowledge. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered, plus the alternative (route through this tool instead of answering directly).

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