regression_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Liste' implies a read-only operation and 'impactes en cascade' discloses that results include transitive impacts, which is useful. It does not mention error conditions, assumptions about source code, or whether results are static or derived live, but the core behavior is clear enough for a listing tool.

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 compact and front-loaded with the user's question, which makes the intent immediately graspable. The leading 'Regression map' slightly repeats the tool name, and the quoted question could be tighter, but no meaningful context is wasted.

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 one-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential call intent and enumerates the result categories: pages, API routes, and entry points. It does not specify exact return formatting or ordering, but those are not necessary for a correct 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 description coverage is 100%, with filePath already described as 'Chemin du fichier modifie (absolu ou relatif)'. The description adds no new parameter semantics; the phrase 'je modifie ce fichier' restates what the schema already communicates. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the parameter documentation fully.

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 anchors the tool to a concrete use case ('je modifie ce fichier, quelles pages/routes retester ?') and names a specific action plus resource: 'Liste les pages, routes API et entry points impactes en cascade.' It differentiates the tool from generic siblings like impact or dependencies by focusing on regression retesting, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 quoted scenario makes the triggering condition obvious: use it when a file is modified and you need to know what to retest. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives such as impact or dependencies are mentioned.

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