ck_regression_result

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses that this is a write operation creating a DB record and returns the recorded result ID. It lists required and optional parameters. While it doesn't detail permissions or edge cases, the disclosure is sufficient for basic understanding.

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 a single paragraph with 4-5 sentences, front-loading the purpose and immediately stating the write operation. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage flow, required/optional params, return value, and retrieval method (ck_memory_search). However, it does not explain the evidence payload structure or error scenarios, though the schema provides structure. Overall, it's complete for most use cases.

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 high (91%), but the description adds context beyond the schema: it emphasizes required fields (session_id, engine, flow_name, outcome) and explains the purpose of optional fields like commit_sha (link to revision) and evidence (structured payload). This adds meaningful guidance.

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 tool records external regression-test evidence (e.g., Bug0, Passmark) for proof bundles and release-readiness. It specifies the verb 'record' and resource 'regression-test evidence', and distinguishes from sibling tools like ck_memory_search for retrieval.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use after an external test run to close the proof loop before calling ck_review_submit for a completion review.' It also suggests using ck_memory_search for retrieval. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or provide alternative tools for other scenarios.

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