Analyze Regressions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Return a structured categorized regression report' signals a read-only reporting behavior, but it does not disclose side effects, prerequisite data requirements, or how categorization is determined. This is adequate but thin.

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 one clean, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and the output, which is ideal for the tool's simple interface.

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?

Although an output schema exists and may document the report structure, the input side is underspecified. The single required 'run' parameter is an unconstrained object, and the description does not clarify what an evaluation run must contain or how to obtain it. This leaves meaningful ambiguity for an agent trying to invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the schema only provides a generic 'run' object with additionalProperties true. The description adds that 'run' is an evaluation run, which is useful, but gives no detail about required fields, expected structure, or how the run object should be supplied.

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 names a specific verb ('Return'), resource ('structured categorized regression report'), and target ('evaluation run'). It is clear and focused, though it does not explicitly contrast with similar reporting/analysis siblings such as analyze_prompt or generate_migration_report.

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 gives a clear context for use: analyzing regressions from an evaluation run. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the intended scenario is reasonably clear.

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