ida_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Search the binary...' without mentioning return format, performance characteristics, or any side effects. There is no information about how hits are returned or what happens on invalid patterns.

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 with no redundancy. It includes just enough to convey the core operation and the key kind values, making it appropriately 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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description fails to explain what results look like (e.g., addresses, matches, count). It also doesn't clarify the scope (e.g., current IDA binary) or any limitations like search speed for large patterns. Given the many sibling tools, context for usage is minimal.

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 already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds the 'kind: bytes|string|unicode' hint, which duplicates the schema's kind parameter description. No additional parameter semantics are provided.

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's purpose: searching the binary for a byte pattern or string. The 'kind: bytes|string|unicode' hint clarifies the search modes. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ida_find_string_refs, the direct search operation is clear enough.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ida_find_string_refs, windbg_search_memory, or ida_scan_bossix. It only states the basic operation, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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