Text-Toolkit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions the operation ('Replace text') but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it's case-sensitive, how flags affect behavior, what happens on pattern mismatch, or error handling. For a regex tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 description is extremely concise—a single sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and method. Every word earns its place, making it easy to scan and understand at a glance without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of regex operations, 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral nuances, error cases, or output format. For a tool that performs pattern-based text transformation, more context is needed for reliable agent 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 0%, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It doesn't explain what the 'flags' parameter does, how 'replacement' interacts with regex groups, or the expected format for 'pattern'. With 4 parameters (3 required) completely undocumented in both schema and description, this is inadequate for effective tool use.

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 verb ('Replace') and resource ('text'), specifying the method ('using a regex pattern'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'string_replace' by indicating regex-based replacement. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'regex_extract' or 'regex_split', which would make it a 5.

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 versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when regex replacement is preferred over simple string replacement ('string_replace'), or how it differs from other regex tools like 'regex_extract' or 'regex_split' in the sibling list. The description offers no context for tool selection.

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