test_regex

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

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, safety is already covered by annotations. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail about the return content—matches, captured groups, named groups, and match positions—which helps set expectations beyond the structured metadata.

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?

Two sentences, no redundant phrasing, and the core functionality is stated first followed by a practical use case. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only regex testing tool, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. The schema handles parameter details, and no output schema is needed because the description summarizes the return format sufficiently.

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 schema already documents all four parameters and their roles. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but it does clarify what the results represent, which is consistent with the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Test a regular expression pattern against text," and then enumerates the output (matches, captured groups, named groups, positions). This makes the tool's function unambiguous and clearly distinct from the sibling validation and analysis tools.

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 phrase "Useful for validating patterns before deploying them" gives a clear intended use case. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when this tool applies.

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