indicators_regime

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by detailing the return categories (trend regime, volatility regime, change signals), enhancing transparency beyond annotations.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and usage, then lists outputs. Every sentence adds value.

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 classification tool with 3 well-documented parameters, the description covers purpose, usage, and outputs. It lacks details on algorithm assumptions but is adequate for agent selection.

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 100%, baseline 3. The description mentions 'Provide a price series' linking to the 'prices' parameter, but does not explain 'sma_period' or 'vol_window' beyond what the schema already provides.

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 explicitly states the tool classifies market regime (trend, volatility, risk) and lists specific outputs. It uses a specific verb ('classify') and resource ('market regime'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'indicators_crossover' or 'indicators_technical'.

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 says 'Use when classifying market regime (trending vs ranging, high vs low volatility)', providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use or explicitly name alternatives, though sibling tools imply other uses.

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