regex_tester

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the return value (matches, groups, positions) and implies no side effects (read-only). However, it does not disclose any edge cases, performance characteristics, or error handling (e.g., invalid regex patterns). The description is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise: two sentences totalling ~20 words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately follows with the return value. There is no redundant or unnecessary 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 (3 scalar parameters, no output schema, no nested objects) and the absence of annotations, the description covers the essential functionality. It could be improved by mentioning error handling or performance considerations, but for a straightforward regex tester, it is largely complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a note about 'without delimiters' for the pattern and explains flag abbreviations, but these are already present in the schema descriptions. No additional semantic value is provided beyond the schema, so the score remains at the baseline.

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's purpose: testing a regular expression against text and returning matches, groups, and positions. It uses a specific verb ('test') and resource ('regular expression'), and the output is explicitly described. Among sibling tools (e.g., case_converter, text_reverser), no other tool serves this exact purpose, so distinction is clear.

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 or when not to use it. It does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or context. While the purpose is clear, there is no explicit usage advice to help an agent decide among siblings.

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