get_regression_alerts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that alerts are "persisted" and originate from record_print_outcome; it says nothing about ordering, pagination, retention window, or what fields an alert contains. The inserted pricing text ("Requires Kiln Pro") is boilerplate that ambiguously implies a tier gate without confirming whether this specific tool is gated.

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 first sentence is well-formed and front-loaded, but the following three lines are marketing copy with an upgrade URL that occupies the majority of the description and earns no place in a tool definition.

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 annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented design_id parameter, the description should explain what an alert looks like and how results are ordered or scoped. Instead it spends its length on pricing text, leaving the agent without enough to call the tool confidently.

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 67% and design_id has no description in either place. The description does not explain limit semantics, ordering implied by limit, or what include_dismissed does to the result set, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb ("List") and resource ("persisted regression alerts") and even identifies the producing tool, record_print_outcome, which separates it from dismiss_regression_alert and check_design_regression. However, the remaining three lines of pricing boilerplate dilute the signal and could make an agent wonder whether the tool is a paid feature gate rather than an alert lister.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus check_design_regression or dismiss_regression_alert, nor any prerequisite. The only hint is the include_dismissed parameter name, which is left to inference.

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