regex_match

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

The description does not disclose what 'all matches' returns (e.g., array of strings, objects with indices). With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action, not the output format or edge-case behavior.

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 single sentence is very concise and front-loaded. However, it may be too sparse, lacking additional details that could help without harming 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?

Given the presence of an output schema (as per context signals), the description might be sufficient if the schema documents the return format. However, the description itself does not mention what a 'match' consists of, leaving some ambiguity.

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%, with clear descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'pattern' is self-explanatory). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: finding all matches of a regular expression in text. It uses a specific verb 'Find' and resource 'all matches of a regular expression in text', distinguishing it from siblings like regex_replace.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as regex_replace or extract_emails. The description lacks context on prerequisites or suitable scenarios.

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