BearQ: Run Regression Tests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope of 'every regression-ready test case' and the CI/CD context, but it does not disclose async behavior, how results are returned, or whether a task object is created—information an agent may need for long-running suites.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one clear sentence, followed by a concise usage hint. The 'Parameters' section duplicates the schema and could be trimmed, but overall the description is compact and well-structured.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns, whether the run is synchronous or asynchronous, or how to retrieve test results. Sibling tools like bearq_get_task_status and bearq_wait_for_task imply a task-based flow, but the description leaves this important behavioral detail implicit.

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% for the single optional environment parameter. The description repeats the same parameter text verbatim without adding syntax, defaults, or examples 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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Runs the full BearQ regression suite — every regression-ready test case in the workspace.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like bearq_run_test_cases and bearq_run_tests_in_functional_areas by emphasizing the full suite scope.

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?

States clear usage context: 'Use for CI/CD or pre-release smoke.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as pointing to bearq_run_test_cases for targeted runs.

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