Create Defect Matcher

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining how matchers work (matching error messages/stack traces) and the requirement for at least one regex, which is a behavioral constraint not captured in the schema.

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 consists of three concise sentences that are front-loaded: first states the main action, second explains the mechanism, and third gives a key constraint. Every sentence adds essential information with no unnecessary words.

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 complexity (5 parameters, 2 required, no enums) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's function and key constraints. It covers the core behavior and the important 'at least one' rule, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly stating the business rule that at least one of message_regex or trace_regex must be supplied, and by providing context on how these regex patterns are used (matching error messages or stack traces).

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 'Create' and the resource 'defect matcher', and explains its purpose as an automation rule that links future failing test results to a defect based on regex patterns. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_defect or update_defect_matcher.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to set up automatic linking of test failures to a defect. It also explicitly states the constraint that at least one regex must be supplied. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the naming and sibling list make it clear.

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