create_regex_pattern

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose the output format, whether the generated regex is returned as a string, how variant aggressiveness affects the pattern, or any limitations, permissions, or side effects.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted words and is front-loaded with the core action. It is appropriately concise, though it could include one more sentence of essential guidance without becoming bloated.

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 two parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and partial schema descriptions, the description is too sparse. It omits variant semantics, expected output, and practical usage context needed for reliable invocation.

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 only 50%: 'word' is documented as 'The base word,' but 'includeVariants' has an enum with no explanation. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema and does not explain what basic, moderate, or aggressive variants actually produce.

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: 'Generate regex patterns,' scoped to 'custom profanity detection.' It is clear enough to distinguish from checking or censoring, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as check_profanity or detect_obfuscation.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The word 'custom' implies a use case, but the agent must infer that this is for building reusable regexes rather than checking content directly.

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