binary_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail — that overlapping matches are included — but says nothing about result ordering, the max_results cap, or what happens when length is omitted.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the search scope comes first and the matching behavior second. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

For a five-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description leaves too much unstated: return format (offsets? match counts?), result limiting, and the required hex encoding of pattern_hex. An agent could invoke it, but only by guessing at the semantics.

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% across five parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at offset/length via 'bounded disk interval' and at pattern_hex via 'hex bytes', but leaves length semantics, the max_results default of 100, and the hex string format entirely unexplained.

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 (search) and resource (a bounded disk interval for hex bytes), which is clearly distinct from siblings like binary_read, binary_inspect, and binary_diff. However, it never names or contrasts those siblings, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no indication of when binary_read or binary_inspect would be preferable. An agent must guess from the name alone whether this is the right tool for a given disk-search task.

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