parse_region_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 input format and that the tool parses into components, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose error behavior, validation rules, or the exact structure of the parsed output. This is a moderate level of transparency, similar to parse tools that are assumed to be pure functions.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the primary action. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides the format and a usage hint. There is no extraneous information, making it appropriately concise.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), but the description does not fully explain the return value or error behavior. Since no output schema exists, the description should clarify what the parsed components look like (e.g., an object with keys file, class, func, lines). The mention of 'into its components' is helpful but incomplete without specifics.

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?

The input schema only lists 'regionId' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by specifying the expected format: 'file:<path>::class:<name>::func:<name>::lines:<start>-<end>.' This provides essential meaning beyond the bare schema. It would earn a 5 if it included an example or further detailed each component's constraints.

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: 'Parse a region identifier string into its components.' It also provides the specific format for region identifiers, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_region_relationship_tool or get_region_metrics_tool. The verb 'parse' is specific and unambiguous.

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 includes a clear usage context: 'Useful for understanding region hierarchy.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate use cases. The lack of exclusions keeps it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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