Get regressions

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by detailing the output structure (grouped bugs, sorted by count, unlinked bugs) and the purpose of surfacing risk. Since readOnlyHint is already true, the description enhances understanding of the tool's behavior without contradiction.

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 three concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the key information ('Regression view') and efficiently conveys grouping, sorting, purpose, and a reference to a related tool.

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 covers the output format and purpose well for a read-only tool, but it omits explanation of the 'project' parameter and the exact structure of the returned data. Given the simplicity, it is mostly complete but could be improved with parameter details.

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 sole parameter 'project' has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the tool description does not explain its meaning or expected values. The agent lacks guidance on what project to specify, which is a significant gap for a required 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 provides a 'regression view' with bugs grouped by linked features, sorted by open-bug count, and includes unlinked bugs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing link_tasks to populate the view and specifying the unique grouping and sorting behavior.

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 indicates when to use the tool by stating it surfaces which shipped features are at risk and references link_tasks to populate the view. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct alternatives beyond link_tasks.

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