fingerprint_regression

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 mentions combining data to fingerprint a root cause, which implies analysis/read-only behavior, but doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, has side effects, involves data processing limits, or what the output format looks like. For a diagnostic tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding what the tool does, making it appropriately concise and 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?

Given the complexity of regression diagnosis and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'fingerprint' entails, what format the output takes, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool that likely involves data analysis and diagnosis, more context is needed to understand its full scope and limitations.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (sensor, build, profile) with descriptions. The tool description doesn't add any additional meaning about these parameters beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain how they relate to 'performance verdict' or 'live diagnostic data' mentioned in the purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Combine performance verdict with live diagnostic data to fingerprint the root cause of a regression.' It specifies the action (combine/fingerprint), resources (performance verdict, live diagnostic data), and outcome (root cause of regression). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'diagnose_drops' or 'fleet_regression_sweep' that might have related functionality.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a performance verdict first), exclusions, or how it differs from similar tools like 'diagnose_drops' or 'fleet_regression_sweep' in the sibling list. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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