list_late_regressions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains what a late regression and a dismissed regression mean, but it does not state that the operation is read-only, whether pagination applies, what the response shape is, or any authorization or rate-limit 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 first sentence is compact and front-loads the key concept. The second sentence is poorly structured and ambiguous: 'One with dismissed set was dismissed by a person as a false alarm, with their reason: it needs no action' is hard to parse and should have been rewritten more directly.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and only 50% parameter description coverage, the description should do more to explain list behavior, return values, filtering, and pagination. It provides useful domain vocabulary but is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 coverage is only 50%, and the description adds no meaning for either parameter. The 'since' parameter has a brief ISO 8601 description in the schema, while 'limit' is completely undocumented in both places, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 defines the domain concept of late regressions as failures found after release clearance on uncovered paths, but it never explicitly says the tool lists or returns these failures. The tool name supplies the verb, yet the description itself does not clearly distinguish this list operation from siblings such as get_exception or list_deployments.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. An agent must infer from the concept alone whether this is the right tool for investigating post-release failures or whether get_exception or get_verification should be used first.

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