regression_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('verify') but does not confirm side effects, error handling, return values, or permissions. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the basic purpose.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is too terse for the tool's complexity, lacking essential details. While concise, it sacrifices completeness.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the format or semantics of parameters, the nature of the output, or how guard thresholds are defined. Important gaps remain.

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?

The input schema has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'guard thresholds' hinting at the 'guards' parameter but fails to define what 'baseline' and 'candidate' are (e.g., IDs, file paths) or the structure expected in 'guards'. This provides minimal additional meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 purpose: to verify that a candidate report does not exceed guard thresholds relative to a baseline. The verb 'verify' and the specific resource 'candidate report vs baseline' are well-defined. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'compare_reports', but its focus on thresholds provides implicit differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compare_reports', nor does it mention prerequisites, failure scenarios, or when not to use it. It only states what it does without context.

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