regression_catalog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list of regression entries with structured fields, implying a read-only query. However, it does not explicitly state that no data is modified or mention any other behavioral constraints (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs).

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 two sentences long, with the first sentence delivering the core purpose. The second sentence lists the output fields, which is helpful though slightly verbose. No extraneous information.

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's simplicity (0 required parameters, no output schema), the description is sufficient. It explains both input and output behavior. Minor gap: it does not specify behavior when no regressions match the filter or when the catalog is empty, but this is acceptable for a low-complexity tool.

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, and the description reinforces its optional nature ('optionally filtered to a specific version'). Additionally, the description lists the exact fields of each entry (id, version range, severity, description, mitigation, linked field reports), which adds meaning beyond the schema's parameter documentation.

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 begins with 'Return every known regression in the catalog,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It optionally filters by version and enumerates the entry fields (id, version range, severity, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'available_upgrades' or 'rollback_guide'.

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 clearly states the tool returns regressions, optionally filtered by version. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, the sibling tool names (all upgrade or snapshot related) make the usage context clear. No contradictions or misleading guidance.

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