get_regression_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses pass/fail logic based on threshold and default value, but does not specify read-only nature, error conditions, or prerequisite state (e.g., tests must have been run).

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then definition. No redundant words. Could be slightly more concise but overall well-structured.

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?

Without output schema, description lacks output format details (e.g., counts, list). Also missing error handling and prerequisites. However, for a simple query tool, it covers core behavior adequately.

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 50% (only threshold has description). Description adds context for threshold (default 70, pass condition) but not for workspaceId. With low coverage, description partially compensates but misses required parameter explanation.

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?

Clearly states it provides a 'Pass/fail summary across all test cases for the current system prompt.' Differentiates from sibling tools like run_regression_testsuite by focusing on status retrieval rather than execution. Lacks explicit output format but is sufficient.

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?

Gives explicit timing advice: 'Call after running all test cases to decide: is the prompt good enough, or improve further?' but does not provide when-not-to-use or mention alternative tools like loop_regression for iterative improvement.

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