Text-Toolkit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'split text' implies a read-only transformation, it doesn't address critical behavioral aspects: whether the operation is case-sensitive, how empty matches are handled, what happens with invalid regex patterns, or the format of the output (e.g., array of strings). For a regex tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool and front-loads the core functionality. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain error handling, output format, or practical examples. For a tool with three parameters and no structured documentation, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.

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 for all three parameters. It mentions 'text' and 'pattern' implicitly but doesn't explain the 'flags' parameter at all. No details are provided about regex syntax, flag options (like 'i' for case-insensitive), or expected input formats. The description adds minimal value beyond what the parameter names suggest.

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: 'Split text using a regex pattern'. It specifies the verb ('split') and resource ('text'), and the regex pattern usage distinguishes it from the simpler 'string_split' sibling tool. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'regex_extract' or 'regex_replace', which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'string_split' (for simple delimiter-based splitting) and 'regex_extract' (for extracting matches rather than splitting), the agent receives no help in choosing between them. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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