test_regex

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only states 'return matches' without specifying the regex flavor, flag handling, output format, or error behavior for invalid patterns. This lacks the detail needed for an agent to understand side effects or special cases.

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, concise sentence with no filler words. It is well-structured and front-loaded. However, it is almost too minimal; a brief mention of flags or return format could be included without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description alone must be complete. It is not: it fails to explain the 'flags' parameter, the structure of matches, or behavior with invalid regex. This is inadequate for a tool with three parameters.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the role of 'pattern' and 'text' implicitly, but does not mention the 'flags' parameter at all, nor does it specify accepted flag formats or defaults. The description adds minimal meaning over the raw parameter names.

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 function: 'Test a regex pattern against text and return matches.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the outcome is clear. It is distinct from all sibling tools, none of which involve regex testing.

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 testing regex patterns, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or context. Since there is no sibling regex tool, an alternative reference is not critical, but more guidance on usage context (e.g., testing one pattern at a time) would improve it.

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