jaeger_regression_diff

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by explaining that it fetches traces from both windows, classifies operations into four categories, and sorts results by severity score. This goes beyond the annotation hints and helps the agent understand the processing flow and output ordering.

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 concise, consisting of three sentences with no filler. The first sentence is a clear front-loaded summary; the following sentences add relevant detail about the classification categories and severity sorting. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.

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 description is complete for a read-only analysis tool with a rich schema and an output schema available. It explains the core process (fetch, classify, sort) and the classification labels, which covers the main behavior. Some could argue it doesn't mention default window behaviors, but those are already documented in the schema, and the output schema explains return values, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it implies the time parameters pertain to baseline and comparison windows but does not elaborate on syntax or interactions. The schema already provides sufficient semantic detail for each parameter.

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: comparing two Jaeger time windows and classifying per-operation regressions. It enumerates specific classification outcomes (regressed, recovered, appeared, removed) and mentions sorting by severity score, distinguishing it from siblings like jaeger_compare_windows which may only compare windows without classification.

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 implicitly conveys when to use the tool: when you need to compare two time windows to identify regressions and related operation changes. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or provide exclusions (e.g., when to use jaeger_compare_windows instead). The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection.

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