Find Bytes

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 implies a read-only search but says nothing about the default result limit (100), range defaults, timeout behavior, or that results are capped — all relevant for reasonably heavy scanning operations.

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 waste, but it is arguably too terse for a six-parameter search tool — minimal rather than efficient.

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 tool with six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description omits scope semantics (start/end defaults to min/max EA), limit truncation behavior, and result format. An agent lacks enough to call it confidently in a large binary.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the wildcard example and each parameter's default/range, so the description's wildcard note duplicates structured data. Baseline 3 applies; no additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 (byte pattern) with the wildcard mechanism named, which distinguishes it in spirit from find_regex/search_text. However it never names an alternative sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than declared.

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?

No indication of when to use this over find_regex, find_instructions, or get_bytes, nor any prerequisites (e.g. loaded IDB, analysis complete). Only the vaguest implied usage as a search operation.

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