regex_debug

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool shows detailed match information and hints on no match, which are key behaviors. However, it does not describe the exact output format or mention any side effects (none expected), but it is sufficiently transparent for a debug tool.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence adds value. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

For a tool with 3 simple parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core functionality and output details. It does not mention edge cases or performance, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what the tool does.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The tool description does not add extra semantic value beyond what is already in the schema. It mentions 'input text' but that is implicit in the schema. Hence, baseline score of 3.

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 'Debug a regex pattern against input text' with a specific verb and resource. It describes outputs (match positions, visual markers, context, hints) that distinguish it from sibling tools like regex_test (simple match check) or regex_explain (pattern explanation).

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 usage for debugging regex but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to sibling tools. While the verb 'debug' conveys intent, there is no direct guidance like 'Use this tool to visualize matches; for a simple pass/fail test, use regex_test instead.'

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