Synthesizes linear-time, ReDoS-safe regular expressions from plain-language pattern requirements and validates them with positive and negative test cases.
Synthesizes linear-time O(n) ReDoS-safe regular expressions with positive/negative test validation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| description | Yes | Pattern requirements |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful traits: a complexity guarantee (linear-time O(n)), a safety property (ReDoS-safe), and a validation methodology (positive/negative tests). However, it says nothing about what is actually returned, whether generation is deterministic, what happens on an unsatisfiable or ambiguous pattern, or any 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?
One dense sentence with no filler; the differentiating properties (linear-time, ReDoS-safe, test validation) are front-loaded. Every clause 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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the generation behavior but leaves the agent guessing about the return shape — does it return just the regex, or regex plus test cases, or a report? With no output schema and no annotations, that omission is the main remaining gap.
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 single 'description' parameter ('Pattern requirements') is already documented by the schema and the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra syntax, format, or example for how to phrase requirements, so it neither compensates nor regresses.
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?
States a specific verb ('Synthesizes') and a precisely characterized resource ('linear-time O(n) ReDoS-safe regular expressions'), plus a secondary deliverable (positive/negative test validation). This is far more informative than a generic 'regex tool' label and is unmistakably distinct from the JSON/prompt/auditing siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with any of them.
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 says what the tool does but never says when to reach for it over alternatives, nor any prerequisites, exclusions, or constraints on the input pattern. 'ReDoS-safe' hints at a use case (safety-critical patterns) but the agent must infer that; no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.