validator_validate_pattern

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates that the tool performs validation and returns a specific result object, implying it is a read-only operation. However, it does not mention edge cases, error handling, or side effects. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose with active verb and resource, followed by a concise return type spec. No superfluous words; every element is necessary and earned its place.

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 complexity (3 parameters, simple validation) and the presence of an output schema inferred from the description, the description is reasonably complete. However, it lacks details on flag options, error behavior, and interaction with sibling tools. Could be more comprehensive for a generic validator.

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% description coverage, and the description only adds context for 'value' and 'pattern' by relating them to 'string' and 'regex pattern'. The 'flags' parameter is not explained at all. The description partially compensates but does not fully define each parameter's meaning or expected format, such as valid flag values or defaults.

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 (Validate a string) and the resource (a string against a regex pattern), and distinguishes it from sibling validators like validate_email or validate_ip by specifying it works with arbitrary patterns. The return structure is also provided, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need regex validation) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like validator_validate_email for specific formats. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given, leaving the agent to infer based on the name and siblings.

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