run_regression_testsuite

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

Discloses key behavior: 'Single pass — does not auto-improve.' No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It omits details like whether the tool modifies state or requires permissions, but the single-pass constraint is well communicated.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then steps. Three concise sentences plus bullet-style steps. Efficient, though the steps could be slightly streamlined. No wasted 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 2 simple params, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the core activity well and references sibling tools. However, it does not specify the tool's return value or whether it returns a session ID for later status checks, leaving some ambiguity.

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 a description). The description adds no additional meaning for either parameter. workspaceId is undocumented in both schema and description, and threshold's schema description is already present. No value added beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Run all test cases against the current system prompt' – a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool loop_regression by noting this is a single pass and not auto-improving.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use: 'Use this to verify an already-good prompt still passes all test cases.' And when not: 'For automatic improvement loops, use loop_regression.' Provides a clear step-by-step workflow after calling.

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