check_region_relationship_tool

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 explains the semantics of 'contains' (file vs function regions), which is valuable. However, it does not disclose the return format (e.g., boolean or relationship type), possible side effects (even though 'check' implies read-only), or edge cases like self-containment or parameter order. The behavioral disclosure is partial.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a use case and a clarifying semantic note. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 the tool's low complexity (two string parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main aspects: what it does, when to use it, and the meaning of the relationship. However, it omits the return value specification and any potential prerequisites or failure modes, which are especially important because no output schema or annotations exist. For a simple check tool, this is nearing completeness but has a notable gap.

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 0% and the description does not explicitly explain the parameters 'regionA' and 'regionB'. While the tool's purpose implies they are the two regions to compare, there is no guidance on the expected string format (e.g., file path, region ID) or how to reference file vs. function regions. The description's note about file/function regions adds some semantic context but does not compensate for the lack of parameter details.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Check if one region contains or overlaps another.' It also clarifies the meaning of 'contains' for file and function regions, which uniquely positions it among region-related tools. No sibling tool offers this relationship-checking capability.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Useful for aggregating metrics across related regions.' This gives the agent context on when to employ the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools, though siblings like get_region_metrics_tool or parse_region_tool might be relevant in other scenarios.

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