regression_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait that this is an additive "append" to a fixed file, but says nothing about whether the file/workspace must pre-exist, permissions, or overwrite risk.

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?

A single tight sentence front-loads the action and target file, with the enum parenthetical earning its place. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but with no annotations and 0% schema coverage the description leaves workspace scoping and note semantics undocumented. Adequate but with clear gaps for a three-parameter write 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 coverage is 0% with three required params, so the description must compensate. It usefully enumerates the status values (pass|regressed|fixed|wip), which the schema does not, but leaves both "workspace" and "note" entirely unexplained.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Append") with a precise resource ("tests/REGRESSIONS.md"), making the action unambiguous. It stops short of differentiating itself from sibling tools like kb_new or test_app_in_vm, which an agent may conflate with log-writing.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kb_new or compat_report, nor any prerequisite context. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and target file.

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