search_bytes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains the input format and hints at the pattern nature, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what happens with invalid patterns, performance with large result sets, or whether the search is case-sensitive. The default max_results of 100 is documented in the schema but not mentioned in the description.

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 focused sentence with embedded examples. Each phrase earns its place. Could be slightly clearer by separating the examples from the main instruction, but still very concise.

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 output schema exists (return format likely clear to agent), the description addresses input format well. However, behavior for edge cases (no matches, timeouts, memory limits) and additional traits (case sensitivity, wildcards) are missing. For a binary search tool, completeness is adequate but has gaps.

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 both parameters. It does a good job with 'pattern' (format, examples) but provides no guidance on 'max_results' (its meaning, limitations, or notation). The description adds moderate value beyond the minimal schema for one of two parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('byte pattern in the binary'), with concrete examples. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'search_text' (which searches strings) and 'get_bytes' (which retrieves bytes at an address).

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 explicit input format guidance ('hex bytes with optional spaces') and examples, but does not state when to use this vs. alternative search tools (e.g., when to use search_text instead). Sibling names like 'search_text' suggest alternatives, but the description doesn't reference them.

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