search_text

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 the matching scope (mnemonics, operands, comments), which is useful. However, it omits behavioral details such as case sensitivity, regex support, search scope (all segments vs current), and whether it is a linear or indexed search. This leaves significant gaps.

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 sentence of 13 words, which is very concise. It front-loads the verb and resource. While it could include more detail without being verbose, it earns its place by being efficient and to the point. No wasted words.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are not the description's responsibility. However, the tool has 2 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage. The description explains what it searches and where, but does not cover behavior like case sensitivity, search scope, or how results are ordered. It is adequate for a simple search but lacks completeness for a production tool.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only implicitly covers the 'query' parameter by stating it searches for 'a string'. The 'max_results' parameter is not mentioned at all. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's param names and types.

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 searches through disassembly text, specifying the verb 'Search' and the resource 'disassembly text'. It further clarifies what it matches against (instruction mnemonics, operands, and comments), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_bytes (which searches raw bytes).

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 implies the tool is for text-based search within disassembly, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., search_bytes, get_xrefs_to). No guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites is provided. The usage is clear only from context, not from explicit direction.

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