ck_regression_result

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. Description adds that it is a write operation, creates a DB record, and returns the result ID. No contradiction. Describes outcome enum values but not side effects like idempotency; annotations cover those.

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?

Description is moderately concise, front-loads the core purpose, then lists parameters and usage context. Each sentence serves a purpose, though the parameter listing could be tighter. Slightly verbose but well-organized.

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?

Covers purpose, usage context, return value (result ID), required and optional parameters, and references sibling tools for retrieval. Does not detail the structure of the 'evidence' payload, but output schema exists to cover that. Adequate for the complexity (11 params, nested objects).

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 91%, so parameters are already well-described. Description reiterates required (session_id, engine, flow_name, outcome) and optional (commit_sha, environment, external_run_id, evidence) parameters with minimal added meaning beyond the schema. Groups them but does not explain parameter formats or constraints.

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 clearly states it records external regression-test evidence from CI/CD systems, names specific example systems (Bug0, Passmark), and distinguishes from siblings by referencing ck_memory_search for retrieval and ck_review_submit for follow-up.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use after an external test run to close the proof loop before calling ck_review_submit for a completion review.' Also lists required parameters and mentions retrieval alternative. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is clear.

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