re2_memory

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only vaguely says 'sweep' without explaining that this likely involves many compilation attempts, potential performance impacts, or side effects. It also doesn't state what happens on failure or how results are returned.

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 that immediately states the action and purpose. It contains no filler, is well-front-loaded with the verb 'Sweep', and efficiently delivers the key 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?

While an output schema exists (blunting the need to describe return values), the tool lacks guidance on when to use it, what the pattern parameter means, and what the 'sweep' entails operationally. For a tool with one parameter and no annotations, this is insufficiently context-rich.

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 only one parameter, 'pattern', with 0% description coverage. The description never mentions this parameter or explains that 'pattern' is the regex to test. This is a significant gap since the parameter's role is left to inference.

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 specific purpose: sweeping RE2 max_mem to find the compile-memory cliff. It names the resource (RE2 max_mem), the action (sweep), and the exact outcome (largest failing cap, smallest succeeding cap), distinguishing it from siblings like analyze or suggest_rewrites.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or prerequisites. It implies use when you need to understand memory limits for a specific regex pattern, but it never states this directly or contrasts with sibling tools.

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