predict_regression

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool uses past bugs, test failures, and constraint violations to score risk, but does not clarify if the tool is read-only, what the output format is, or if it has side effects. The behavioral profile is partially transparent.

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, straightforward sentence with no extra words. It conveys the core purpose efficiently, though it could be slightly improved with bullet points or more structure.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the basic function but omits details like the output type (e.g., numeric score, category, probability), required permissions, or prerequisites. It is minimally adequate.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not add meaning beyond the parameter names. 'file_path' and 'change_description' are listed but not explained (e.g., format, examples). The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 clearly states the verb 'score regression risk' and the resource 'proposed change to a file', distinguishing it from siblings like predict_test_failures which focus only on test failures. It specifies the inputs (past bugs, test failures, constraint violations) that make it unique.

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 implies usage for assessing regression risk of a file change, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like predict_test_failures, simulate_change, or validate_change. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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