extract_matches

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels. It includes a dedicated 'Behavioral Transparency' section covering side effects (read-only, stateless), authentication (none for basic, API key for pro), rate limits (10/day free, unlimited pro), error handling (structured errors), idempotency (fully idempotent), and data privacy (no storage/logging).

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 well-structured with clear sections (behavior, when to use, args, behavioral transparency). It is front-loaded with the core purpose. The behavioral section is detailed but valuable; every sentence contributes useful information, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description provides thorough behavioral context (rate limits, errors, idempotency). It lacks deep parameter explanations but compensates with group clarification. Overall, sufficiently complete for a regex extraction 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 0%. The 'Args' section merely lists parameter names with the generic phrase 'to analyze or process,' adding no meaning beyond the schema. However, the initial description clarifies the group parameter's meaning (0 for full, 1+ for captures). No explanation is given for pattern (e.g., regex) or text content.

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 extracts matches of a pattern from text, with specific explanation of the group parameter (0 for full match, 1+ for capture groups). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (build_regex, explain_regex, test_regex) which serve different purposes.

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 'When to use' section provides generic guidance about structured analysis/classification, but does not specifically relate to pattern extraction or compare with sibling tools. The 'When NOT to use' mentions not for real-time decision-making without human review, which is vague. No explicit alternatives are named.

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