Verify Regression

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the check is deterministic ('Pure diagnose() comparison, no LLM') and what it emits (resolved/remaining lists plus a boolean pass), which implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation. However, it never explicitly states there are no writes, what permissions are needed, or cost/latency characteristics.

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 the core rule, then method, then return shape. Three short blocks with minimal waste; the closing metaphor is slightly rhetorical but does communicate the all-or-nothing gate semantics.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still summarizes them. For a 2-parameter tool with no nesting or enums, the remaining gap is positional guidance relative to siblings, which is minor.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The sentence 'every problem signal diagnosed in the input text must be gone in the output text' does convey the before/after relationship of the two required parameters, but it does not name them or specify accepted formats, length, or empty-input behavior.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('verify_regression') and defines the operation precisely as a diagnose() comparison between before_text and after_text problem signals. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings that sound similar (diff_report, mechanical_pass), so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Framing it as 'the pipeline's proof of work' and an 'objective regression gate' implies it belongs at the end of a fix pipeline, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the 11 siblings. Usage must be inferred.

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