nds_search_pattern

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation does not mutate or use heuristic inference, but it does not explain what the search returns, how matches are presented, or the meaning of parameters like limit, offset, and maxScanBytes. It also leaves the 'validated ROM' prerequisite ambiguous, not stating whether the tool validates internally or requires pre-validation.

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, well-structured sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and resource, then lists the accepted pattern types and the non-mutating nature, all in one compact statement.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide a richer overview of the tool's behavior and results. It omits information about search scope selection, result format, pagination, and the significance of validation. The complex nested schema and seven parameters demand more explanatory context than this one-sentence description offers.

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 seven parameters. It does clarify the 'pattern' parameter by listing its supported types, but it provides no explanation for the 'scope' variants, 'limit', 'offset', 'contextBytes', or 'maxScanBytes'. This is insufficient for a schema with nested objects and no property descriptions.

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 a specific resource ('validated Nintendo DS ROM'), and enumerates pattern types ('byte signature, typed integer, ASCII string, or UTF-16LE string'). It also differentiates the tool from mutation-related siblings by explicitly stating 'without mutation or heuristic inference'.

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 read-only search usage but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like nds_find_xrefs or nds_disassemble_range. The phrase 'without mutation' hints at a safe context, but there is no direct exclusion or mention of sibling tools.

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