ck_regression_result

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

With no annotations, description carries the burden and states it's a write operation creating a DB record and returns the recorded result ID. However, it lacks details on idempotency, error conditions, or side effects beyond creation.

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 well-organized paragraph covering purpose, usage, parameters, and alternatives without redundancy. Every sentence adds essential information.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description explains purpose, required/optional parameters, usage sequence, and expected return. It could elaborate on the 'evidence' payload but remains sufficient for agent decision-making.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping required vs optional parameters and explaining their roles in the workflow (e.g., linking to specific revisions). Minor omission of metadata, summary, and task_id.

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 verb 'Record' and the resource 'external regression-test evidence from CI/CD systems'. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the proof loop and linking to ck_review_submit, and contrasts with 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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use after an external test run to close the proof loop before calling ck_review_submit'. Also provides an alternative for retrieval: 'Retrieve past results with ck_memory_search using record_type: regression'.

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