Regex Tester

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, which are consistent with the description. However, the description does not add behavioral traits beyond annotations; it simply restates the core function. With annotations already providing safety profile, a 4 is justified for no contradiction.

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 is front-loaded with the core action. It uses efficient language without unnecessary words.

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 has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat brief. Since all parameters are described in the schema, the description covers the high-level intent but does not elaborate on behavior like error handling or output format. Completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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%, so the description needs to add minimal meaning. It mentions 'text or file content', which maps to text and file_path parameters, adding some context. But it does not explain the replace_with parameter or clarify that pattern is required.

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 'Tests regular expressions against text or file content' clearly states the verb (tests), resource (regular expressions), and context (against text or file content). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cc_analyze_code or cc_fix_json, which have different purposes.

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, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as using cc_replace_text or other tools for complex string replacements. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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