extract_strings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavior: output is annotated with file offsets, both ASCII and UTF-16LE encodings are handled, and highlight tags categorise URLs, paths, registry keys, module names, and suspicious Win32 APIs. However it does not state that this is a non-mutating read operation or note anything about large-file/performance 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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, then a compact per-parameter block. The telegraphic style for parameters is efficient but slightly clipped; nothing is wasted, though it reads as notes rather than prose.

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?

An output schema exists so return-value shape need not be explained, and the description covers the operational parameters and modes of a 7-param forensic tool. It is nearly complete, with only minor gaps around default behavior and error conditions.

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, and it largely does: it defines minlen (minimum run length), limit (max strings), offset/length (byte window), include_wide (UTF-16), and highlight (tag categories). Only the trivial required 'path' param is left implicit, so the schema gap is well covered.

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 (extract) plus resource (printable strings) and names the encodings supported (ASCII + UTF-16LE) and the output enrichment (file offsets). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like hexdump_file or disassemble.

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 never says when to reach for this tool versus hexdump_file or yara_scan, nor any prerequisites. The only contextual hint is 'important on Windows' for include_wide, which is parameter guidance rather than tool-selection guidance.

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