BearQ: Run Regression Tests

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the core action. It does not mention duration, result format, or side effects. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description adds limited value here.

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 concise with two key sentences plus a toolset label. It front-loads the main action and usage. The parameter section is redundant with the schema but minimally impacts conciseness. No wasted sentences.

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 single optional parameter and absence of output schema, the description covers the essential scope and use cases. However, it omits that the tool likely starts a task and returns a task ID (inferred from siblings like bearq_get_task_status). This gap slightly reduces completeness.

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?

Only one parameter (environment) exists with 100% schema coverage. The description repeats the schema's description verbatim. No additional meaning or constraints are provided beyond what the schema already explains. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 it runs the full BearQ regression suite, specifying the scope as 'every regression-ready test case in the workspace.' It distinguishes from siblings like bearq_run_test_cases and bearq_run_tests_in_functional_areas, which target subsets. The verb-run + resource-regression suite sets a clear purpose.

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 provides usage context: 'Use for CI/CD or pre-release smoke.' This tells when to apply the tool but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. The sibling list includes more specific test-running tools, so the agent can infer, but the description lacks direct exclusions.

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