ida_strings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It claims to 'Find all strings' but the schema shows a default limit of 200, meaning without explicit parameters it will not return all strings—this is misleading. It also does not mention whether the operation is read-only, how results are formatted, or any section/encoding scoping, all of which are important for an agent to set expectations.

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 very concise—two short sentences that immediately state the purpose and a key use case. It is front-loaded with the action verb. However, the word 'all' is potentially misleading given the default limit, and the description is so brief that it omits important behavioral details (though that is scored elsewhere). For conciseness itself, it is 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (two optional params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but has gaps. It does not explain the return format, the effect of the limit/min_len parameters, or the fact that 'all strings' is bounded by defaults. Since there is no output schema, the description should at least hint at the output shape, which it does not.

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 provides complete descriptions for both parameters (limit and min_len) with defaults, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It neither enhances nor detracts from parameter understanding.

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 action ('Find all strings in the binary') and resource, and adds a relevant use case (IOC extraction). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like ida_find_string_refs because it targets raw string extraction rather than string references. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar search/discover tools, so it loses one point.

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 a clear use context ('Useful for IOC extraction') but gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor when not to use it. There is no mention of ida_find_string_refs or ida_search as alternatives for different string-related tasks. This is implied but not explicit, so it earns a 3.

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