analyze_regressions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says a report is returned. It does not disclose whether the tool mutates anything, what criteria define regressions, how categories are determined, or any operational constraints.

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 single sentence with no filler and front-loads the key action and deliverable. It is efficiently structured, though its brevity comes at the cost of useful detail.

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?

The input schema is highly underspecified, and the description does not compensate by explaining how to construct or obtain the 'run' object or what the categorized report will contain. Even with an output schema present, the tool is not adequately documented for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the sole parameter 'run' is an opaque object with additionalProperties true. The description adds the minimal meaning that 'run' refers to an evaluation run, but it does not explain what properties the run object should contain or how the tool uses them.

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 uses a clear verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('a structured categorized regression report for an evaluation run'), making the core function understandable. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like generate_migration_report or run_migration_eval, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'for an evaluation run' hints at context, but the description never states conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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