fleet_regression_sweep

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 the sweep checks sensors against baseline profiles and optionally fingerprints regressions, but lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, permission requirements, execution time, error handling, or what 'optional fingerprinting' entails. For a tool performing system-wide regression testing, this is insufficient.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It could be slightly more front-loaded by emphasizing the main action first, but it's appropriately sized and avoids redundancy.

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 running a regression sweep across all sensors, the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., report format, success/failure indicators), error conditions, or dependencies on other tools like 'discover_sensors'. For a tool with significant operational impact, this leaves too many unknowns.

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% for the single parameter 'build', which is documented in the schema as 'Build name from baselines.json to check against'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Run a regression sweep') and scope ('across all discovered sensors against a specific build'), with specific details about checking sensors against baseline profiles and optionally fingerprinting regressions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fingerprint_regression' or 'compare_builds', which prevents a perfect score.

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 'fingerprint_regression' or 'compare_builds', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing discovered sensors or baseline profiles. It only states what the tool does, not when it should be selected.

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