analyze_regime

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It lists the outputs (regime, confidence, signals, portfolio-fit score, suggested adjustments) and cost, but it does not disclose data sources, processing details, or any side effects. The behavioral transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise with four sentences, front-loading the purpose and outputs. It is clear and free of extraneous information, though it could be slightly restructured for better readability.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description explains the returned items and cost but lacks details on interpretation or examples. It is moderately complete given the schema's good param descriptions.

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 (83%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds value by noting that marketIndicators improve confidence, but it does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema for other parameters.

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 it performs market regime detection from macro indicators and portfolio signals, listing the possible regimes and the outputs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like analyze_correlation or analyze_risk by focusing specifically on regime detection.

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 advises providing marketIndicators for higher confidence and mentions the cost, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks comparison to sibling tools.

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